[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Summary: Status of review of the DITA2.0/LwDITA intersection topics
Thanks, Kris. Dispatching the DITAweb comments was obviously a substantial amount of effort. Just to run a couple of items up the flagpole -- - The use case for <ph> differs substantially between DITA
and Lightweight DITA. In DITA, <ph> is clearly a basis for
specialization. OTOH, specialization is not a priority for
Lightweight DITA 1.0, and <ph> is much more likely to be
used as a generic semantic wrapper, for filtering or other
purposes (or, in both specs, as a conref container). We may want
to consider conditional processing on <shortdesc> content
between the two specs (only for <ph>), or punt on
<shortdesc> reuse between the specs for <ph>. - As I author topics for the LwDITA spec, I find the "Formatting
Expectations/Processing Expectations" distinction to be more
tedious than I anticipated. "Formatting" _is_ "Processing". As I
write LwDITA spec content, I'm not assuming content will be
rendered as text, which further clouds the distinction. (I expect
audio and machine consumption will be increasingly popular use
cases). Looking forward to our discussion Monday and beyond. -Alan On 1/26/19 8:40 AM, Kristen James
Eberlein wrote:
-- Alan Houser Group Wellesley, Inc. Consultant and Trainer, Technical Publishing arh on Twitter 412-450-0532 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]