dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] When does DITA Document Type Not Meet Requirements?
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "W. Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:51:37 -0500
Eliot writes:
>All of my clients have indexing requirements that
include the need for
>see and see-also and all have existing document types that provide
that
>markup, all essentially the same as the DocBook index markup scheme.
>
>Without support for just that in DITA I cannot create for any of these
>customers a conforming DITA application that satisfies their indexing.
>
>The fact is that the current DITA document type reflects IBM's specific
>requirements, developed largely in response to the immediates of IBM's
>internal DITA users and without much consideration of more general
>requirements. This is perfectly appropriate for an internal-use
>application and is just how I would have developed it.
Don suggested creating a domain specialization
of indexterm for exactly this situation. You're talking about throwing
away the entire DITA tag library because it lacks an element you need,
when the entire point of DITA specialization is to allow extension of that
tag library.
This is exactly the kind of problem
I was thinking of when I talked about the cost of breaking away from the
base class. The cost of adding a domain and override processing seems trivial
to me, compared with the cost of developing an entire publishing pipeline
from scratch - not to mention the cost of being in non-standard markup
when it comes to off-the-shelf tooling, third-party reuse, etc.
Michael Priestley
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
Dept PRG IBM Canada phone: 416-915-8262
Toronto Information Development
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]