[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook?
this discussion reminds me of the DITA for DocBook post http://norman.walsh.name/2005/10/21/dita how many advantages of DITA will eventually end up in DocBook? what damage will be done to DocBook by including them? On 10/27/06, Steve Whitlatch <swhitlat@getnet.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > RAJAL > > > Topic - as we're discussing here - is a semantically meaningful standalone > piece of content.. > > > > However, no hunk/chuck/topic/piece/paragraph/book/section > of documentation stands alone, and in a sense everything is semantically > meaningful. So, what is the meaning of "topic"? Would it be everything and > anything and belong anywhere? > > > > How are writers supposed to write intelligible "stand-alone" material, > considering that sequence and context are so important for learning. This is > a rhetorical question for the newsgroup, but I did specifically ask this > very question of Don Day (DITA architect). His answer was that writers would > need to change their thinking. > > > > That's when I stopped my efforts with DITA, so I don't know a great deal > about it, or if or where DocBook can use a <topic> element. But OK, I can > imagine documentation with sequence being out, meaning that a writer cannot > rely upon the reader having the foundation of previous material and cannot > depend upon any specific > hunk/chuck/topic/piece/paragraph/book/section to appear in > specific context(s). OK. > > > > The result I imagine as a spaghetti of links. It sounds bad, but in practice > it seems to work good. The IBM DB2 "Information Center"(s) are authored in a > DITA environment, or at least that is what I was told. My apologies if I am > wrong about this. I think they are fine examples of good documentation. > > > > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8//index.jsp > > > > I see logical sequences in that documentation. Maybe that is what the DITA > map is for. > > > > > > Steve Whitlatch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rajal Shah [mailto:rajal@meshsoftware.com] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 9:02 AM > To: 'Chris Chiasson'; 'Johnson, Eric' > Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook? > > > > > Comments inline.. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: chris.chiasson@gmail.com [mailto:chris.chiasson@gmail.com] On Behalf > Of Chris Chiasson > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:51 AM > To: Johnson, Eric > Cc: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook? > > > > 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? > > > > > > >>>>> > > RAJAL -> > > > > Topic - as we're discussing here - is a semantically meaningful standalone > piece of content.. > > > > It greatly facilitates modular writing, where we're not just focused on > books but individual units of information.. The style of writing in the book > changes from being a single flow from beginning-to-end to instead be a > collection of topics.. This allows organizations (I work at Juniper), to > provide their content in book form as well as searchable topics on the web > or for re-use of content elsewhere. > > > > Does that make a high-level case for having <topic>? > > > > Having said that, once we move to the topic world, people will need have the > need for their own topic types.. For e.g. at Juniper we have: > <command-summary>, <verification-task>, <example>, <procedure>, > <trouble-shooting> etc.. The reason is that once we agree on the idea of > standalone topics/modular writing, semantically meaningful topic elements > and their structure gets important for authors - who are now assigned to > topics and not be a book-owner as such.. I am hoping that DocBook can > standardize some of them too at some point.. J > > > > > > Regards. > > -- > > Rajal > > > > -- http://chris.chiasson.name/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]