[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal: Allow <xref> within <shortdesc>
Hi Rodolfo Agreed, a simple base and then specializations seems like a good idea. I like the idea of a reasonably simple description of what Base (or Core) Dita is. I think Kristen expressed that kind of understanding with her statement: “base, technical content, learning & training, semiconductor, TBD” In general - for base: Structural: - topic,concept,reference,task,map,bookmap Base Cross Cutting - conref, xref,keydef/ref - common domains For enhanced independent specializations - enhanced glossary – glossdef ... stuff - subjectscheme - learning and training - semiconductor - other Enhanced Cross Cutting - domains Having simpleBase and Base seems like more to remember. How this drops into DTDs and MODs would have to be in a detailed proposal. Jim From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Rodolfo M. Raya I’m saying that there should be one standard that is flexible enough to allow customizations that follow well established rules. That concept worked well for DITA 1.0, I don’t see why it would not work for future DITA versions as well. The common goal should be to design a standard that tools could support even when users need to work with a customized version. Design DITA in a way that a publishing engine, a CMS or a translation tool can handle despite any custom enhancement added by the user. Two browsers may show the same HTML page with a different layout. The difference in layout should not matter if the content reaches the audience in its entirety. It should also be possible to process a DITA document with or without custom enhancements without the tool used for the task noticing the difference. We may see a difference in rendering, but there should be no content loss caused by customization. If in addition to what is expressed above the DITA standard can be noticeably simplified and still offer something that is useable off the shelf without requiring customization, then it would be a great improvement. Regards, Rodolfo -- From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Michael Priestley So you accept that there can be differences between DITA implementations. But you feel that only one of those variations should be included in the standard.
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]