RE: [dita-lightweight-dita] Re: Do we need multi-level specialization?

I think I agree with Mark, here. If you need more levels of specialization, use full DITA.

 

--Scott

 

From:  [mailto:] On Behalf Of Mark Giffin
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 8:32 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Re: Do we need multi-level specialization?

 

I vote for one level of specialization in Lightweight DITA. I have no use case for it. It seems like if you want that much specialization you should use full DITA.

Mark Giffin
Mark Giffin Consulting, Inc.
http://markgiffin.com/

On 6/26/2016 5:59 PM, Michael Priestley wrote:

OK I've had one vote on this, saying they don't need multi-level specialization.

Anyone else have input?

Do the learning and training specializations depend on more than one level?

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist

http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley

From:        Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM
To:        
Date:        06/14/2016 01:35 PM
Subject:        Do we need multi-level specialization?

In our last call we were struggling with how to represent multiple levels of inheritance in Lightweight DITA, especially in non-XML forms like HTML5 and Markdown.

But backing up a bit, Don asked the question: do we even really need multiple levels in Lightweight?

Do we have any examples where multi-level specialization would be required? That is, any examples where a specialization would need to be based off another existing specialization, rather than off of elements in topic or map.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist

http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley