[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Thoughts on DITA
IMHO, the keys to DITA (relative to DocBook) are the following: 1. Specialization: specialization brings the idea of subtyping to the document world. DITA's implementation of subtyping is clever in that it is much simpler than HyTime's and is independent of schema language. This means that it has a real chance of working well. Subtyping means that I can configure an editor, formatter, content management system or whatever to support DITA topics and you can send me a new kind of topic (perhaps an FAQ). My processor will handle that FAQ automatically: to the best of its abilities based on subtyping relationships. If the "best of its abilities" is not good enough then I can tighten up its configuration. But I always have the choice of falling back on default behaviours. I don't believe that DocBook has this feature. 2. Map and Topic orientation: DITA deliverables are created by combining groups of topics through a map. The map can establish hierarchical relationships that are analogous to a table of contents or peer-to-peer relationships that are analogous to the "see also" lists that in online resources. 3. CONREF: DITA embeds its own variant of the XInclude idea. The biggest difference between CONREF and XInclude is that XInclude must either be implemented as a pre-process to DTD/Schema processing or XInclude elements must be sprinkled throughout your DTD or Schema. Since ANY is in the content model for XInclude (xi:fallback), XInclude makes it really easy to violate your DTD or Schema. DITA's Conref is implemented through an attribute on elements that otherwise have their normal (strict) content models. As an implementor of XML authoring solutions, I see each of these as offering important new opportunities to make the content creation experience better. They are also each interesting because they offer more flexibility in how you structure your content at the same time that they offer more structure around how you take advantage of that flexibility. So, for example, specialization makes it easy to customize DITA just as you customize DocBook. But it constrains you to types of customizations that allow subtyping to work. You could also emulate DITA maps and content references with XML entities, but those are not nearly as structured. That said, DITA has many flaws and weaknesses when compared to DocBook.Perhaps DITA is just immature or perhaps it will have gaps indefinitely. But it seems to me that it has good genes and will evolve quickly and in interesting ways. And of course the fourth advantage of DITA over DocBook is hype. Paul Prescod
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]