← Prev in month ← Prev in thread
Next in thread → Next in month →

RE: [dita-learningspec] FW: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated yet again]

From
JoAnn Hackos <>
Date
2008-05-03T16:17:24+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [dita-learningspec] FW: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated yet again]
Patrick,

I think you're asking a critical question. How will the TC 
provide instructions for DITA users (who may not be professional programmers) to 
create shells to include domains that are not included in a package. What 
documentation is being planned to explain how to use all of these pieces to 
create a coherent whole? What if the editor one uses does not include a 
particular domain? Who will provide the instructions for adding a domain to 
Arbortext Editor, XMetal, etc? Will everyone be expected to engage professional 
services or a consultant? 

 

I hope that the committee members will address these 
questions. Or, that we can get the Adoption SC up and working so that we are 
able to better focus on adoption issues rather than technical 
issues.

 

JoAnn

 

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, 
Inc.
710 Kipling 
Street, Suite 400
Denver CO 80215
303-232-7586


 

 

From: Patrick Quinlan 
[mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 
8:02 AM
To: 
Subject: 
[dita-learningspec] FW: [dita] DITA 1.2 packages [updated yet 
again]

 

My 
gut reaction is yes, those domains should be included, but I guess I’m not clear 
on what the alternative looks like. If the shells do NOT include those domains, 
what has to be done in order to use elements like

 

·         
codeblock

·         
filepath

·         
userinput

·         
uicontrol

 

We 
plan to use them, and I imagine other groups writing training for software 
would.

 

From: Ogden, Jeff 
[mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 4:45 
PM
To: 
Subject: [dita] DITA 1.2 
packages [updated yet again]

 

 

Resolved 
Questions:

 

I.                     
Should 
the Learning and Training topics and ditabase doctype shells include the 
software, ui, and programming domains?  John thinks they should, but will 
check with the LTC subcommittee.

 

This issue is settled 
until we hear back from the LTC subcommittee.  Need to get confirmation back from the 
sub-committee.
← Prev in month ← Prev in thread
Next in thread → Next in month →