Re: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook?

["Chris Chiasson" <chris@chiasson.name>]

I haven't checked this, but I think section is not allowed as a root
element. This means that documents beginning with <section> will
require a DocBook schema customization to validate. I have had this
problem with documents that begin with <equation>.

Maybe it would be better if someone who actually wants <topic> to make
a case for it?

On 10/27/06, Johnson, Eric <Eric.Johnson@iona.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>


-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/