[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook?
As a member of a group who is currently switching from unstructured Frame to an XML based authoring system, I think the familiarity of terms like section and book make the move smoother. They ease the semantic shift because we understand what a book, chapter, section, etc are. Having read through much of the Docbook literature, I don't see any reason why I could not write my content at the section level and then reassemble the sections into any form that I need. It may be called a book in mark-up, but the end result is whatever I want it to be. Maybe a <map> element could be a useful tool to make it easier to build a larger unit of content out of section. However, it sounds like the current debate is about duplicating <section> with a <topic> element for purely marketing reasons. Will the <topic> element have a different content model? Will it be usable in ways that the current <section> element is not? How will it make creating reusable content easier? I'm not saying that marketing is not a good reason for adding stuff, but it is not a great one. > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajal Shah [mailto:rajal@meshsoftware.com] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:33 AM > To: 'Michael(tm) Smith'; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook? > > Mike - > > There are a lot of organization which have based their XML > authoring/publishing infrastructure on DocBook.. They've been > writing books all this time.. Now with DITA coming to the > fore and the fact that the TechPubs groups need to provide > customized content - based on new markets or even to improve > search results to find the exact topic/article that solves > customer's issue - they are forced to consider modular writing.. > > The way to go about solving the issue is to provide a > mechanism within DocBook to continue producing books - as > collections of topics - as well have these individual topics > available for re-use or stand-alone.. > > This is a very real scenario.. And has caused a lot of > confusion over whether to switch over to DITA despite having > DocBook.. And I think DocBook would be missing the point if > they didn't address how to support modular writing as well > have a mechanism to assemble topics into a book (it does that > current with the DTD v/s a map in DITA).. > > Regads. > -- > Rajal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael(tm) Smith [mailto:smith@sideshowbarker.net] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 6:53 AM > To: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook? > > Chris Chiasson <chris@chiasson.name>, 2006-10-27 00:28 -0500: > > > I am afraid of this new <topic> element. However, I don't > want DocBook > > to stagnate while DITA grows just because some people are afraid of > > change. > > Substitute the word "wary" for "afraid". The thing about > changes is that they often have unforeseen consequences. For > example, we decided to add Task as a child of section, and a > year or two later, we've got to figure if/how to allow Task > content in places where by design it's currently not permitted. > > And I don't think there's any risk of DocBook stagnating. > It's soundly designed and is meeting the needs of its target > user base quite well. It's going to remain just as useful a > solution as it always has been: A common vocabulary and > processing infrastructure (the DocBook XSL stylesheets) that > even users/groups with very limited resources can learn and > use productively -- without the need or time or money to do > stuff like customizing/extending the schema/DTD or to write > their own sets of stylesheets. > > And as far as DITA goes, I guess some might argue that it's > tuned for a different target user base: organizations that > manage large and complex sets of content and that can save a > lot of money by using a system that's specifically built, > from the ground up, to faciliate extensive content reuse and > to faciliate creation of custom markup specialized to their > particular needs. > > Anyway, in spite of the possibility that the > information-mapping topic-based authoring approach may not > really be the right solution for many organizations > (especially those that aren't smart enough or careful enough > about avoiding all the possible pitfalls around it), it is > what a lot of them in the corporate tech-writing world seem > to want. And I suspect that many organizations who want that > were not using or considering DocBook to begin with; I'd > guess many had some legacy system based on authoring in, at > best, Framemaker -- and at worst, MS Word or RoboHelp or > whatever. A move by anybody away from that stuff and into any > XML and XSLT-based system is a win for all of us. > > --Mike > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]