dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "Rodolfo M. Raya" <rmraya@maxprograms.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 13:00:39 -0400
Hi Rodolfo,
Would you still feel this way even if
there were two completely different standards? EG: DITA for Rodolfo, and
DITA for Specializers?
If that would be acceptable, what is
it about combining them into one standard - with two deliverables - that
makes the whole unacceptable?
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Total Information Experience (TIE) Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
From:
"Rodolfo M. Raya"
<rmraya@maxprograms.com>
To:
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>,
Date:
09/11/2012 12:27 PM
Subject:
RE: [dita] Proposal:
Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
Sent by:
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Hi,
Please see my comments below
prefixed with RMR.
Regards,
Rodolfo
--
Rodolfo M. Raya rmraya@maxprograms.com
Maxprograms http://www.maxprograms.com
From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 12:27 PM
To: Rodolfo M. Raya
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
Hi Rodolfo,
Keep in mind that for DITA 1.3 there will be an extremely simplified set
of doctypes available for people who want to start with the minimum. We
also provided a minimal doctype in DITA 1.2, but for topic only, and that
doesn't seem to be getting much attention or use.
RMR: there should be only
one set of deliverables, not many to choose from. Adding multiple sets
increases complexity for the first time user and would probably scare some
potential users.
RMR: I would not choose to
work with DITA 1.3 if I have to pick an XML standard for structured authoring
that allows content reuse.
Generally speaking, the audience of the spec includes both specializers
and authors, and most of the doctypes you see in DITA are constrained,
and don't represent every possible option to the end user. A good example
is the task type in DITA 1.2, which has a general version that can be used
by specializers or authors requiring more flexibility, as well as a constrained
version for use by most authors directly.
RMR: Two versions of Task
is extra complication and a good example of the mess created. A well designed
Task should have been enough.
So when you say the standard is getting more complex every day, I need
to understand which behaviors are triggering that reaction, since there
are lots of different motivations on the TC.
- when we add two versions of a task, explicitly to accomodate direct users
as well as specializers, are we making the standard too complex? We did
it in an attempt to simplify things for end-users, but maybe we just made
things worse?
RMR: Yes, you complicated
the standard unnecesarily. Things were made worse. As I said before, a
well-designed Task should have been enough.
- when we add more conref options, like range or push, for use directly
by end-users, we're certainly making the standard more complex - but it's
not because of a focus on specializers or implementers, it's directly in
response to requests from advanced users. Which is where the simplified
doctypes we're targetting for 1.3 come in, as an alternative for starter
users or occasional authors.
RMR: adding more content
referencing options increased complexity and did not provide great benefits
to most existing users. Without conref push and keys, the old DITA was
easier to implement and support. I don’t have actual statistics, but from
what I’ve seen keyref was not adopted by the majority of DITA users. To
me, it seems that complexity was increased for all to benefit just a few.
In the example that triggered this discussion, does it really increase
complexity for end-users if we let xref be authored directly in shortdesc,
instead of making authors sneak it in wrapped in a ph? Making content models
more consistent usuaally decreases complexity, rather than increases it,
doesn't it? Unless there are really good reasons for guiding people down
different paths with the different models, which I don't think is the case
anymore on this issue.
RMR: I don’t care about
adding <xref> to <shotdesc>. I reacted to a statement that
clearly described that DITA is not being designed for authors but for specializers
and implementers instead.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]