← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →
RE: [dita] rich topic with nested divisions
Continuing this proposal, would we have
...
- a
rich topic (called <article> in Michael's posting) that allows more
nesting than <topic> allows.
-
<topic> as a possible direct member of the rich topic
-
<division> as a nestable organizer (depth zero-or-more) of topics within
the rich topic
- the
ability to connect from <map> to rich topics
- the
ability to specialize <topic> as before
-
therefore, the ability (by using a rich topic) to encode a complex topic
containing its own background information
- a
natural separation between the content level (in the rich topic) and the
reuse/rearrangement level (in the map)
This
preserves the DITA perspective that a topic is a really small chunk, while
permitting DITA to be used to encode larger chunks.
To
support this fully would mean agreeing to a policy that requires parallel
support for topics and rich topics. If a facility would make sense with both,
then it should be defined for both.
Best
wishes,
Bruce
Esrig
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:24
AM
To: Paul Prescod
Cc:
Subject: Re: [dita] Two proposals for
nested sections
Paul,
Another alternative is to create an additional base type at the
same level as topic that allows nested divisions. That way we don't affect the
integrity of the topic architecture, but we give you the ability to design
content with nested subheadings within the overall DITA
architecture.
I'm thinking this would be conceptually something
like an article or whitepaper - longer than a topic, may contain topics, but
not in itself a topic. Note that we have been authoring articles in DITA just
using nested topics (there are examples in the toolkit), and that will
continue to be valid as well.
So:
<article
id="xyz">
<title>A longer
piece of content</title>
<shortdesc>We still have the same general DITA structure of a
title, shortdesc, and body</shortdesc>
<articlebody>
<p>But we have one very important difference:
instead of sections, we have divisions, and we allow them to
nest.</p>
<division>
<title>Divisions</title>
<p>Divisions have
a minimal structure consisting of an optional title followed by block-level
content. They are not addressable directly by maps in the way articles or
topics are, so in that respect they are more like sections, except that they
nest.</p>
<topic id="abc">
<title>Topics</title>
<body>
<p>We also allow topics to be authored
inside the body of the article, or pulled in via conref, so that articles can
still contain and reuse topics. So articles can still consume topics, even
though topics (being smaller) cannot consume articles.</p>
</body>
</topic>
</division>
</articlebody>
<related-links><link
href="somewhereelse.dita"/></related-links>
<article id="nestedarticle">
<title>A
subarticle</title>
<shortdesc>We could even allow articles to nest,
after the body - keeping articles separate from articles in the same way we
keep topics separate from topics, that is by separating their content into
different bodies.</shortdesc>
<articlebody><p>And so
on...</p></articlebody>
</article>
</article>
Michael
Priestley
IBM DITA Architect
SWG Classification Schema PDT
Lead
"Paul Prescod"
<>
11/06/2005 08:51 PM
To
<>
cc
Subject
[dita] Two proposals
for nested sections
Since your concern is preventing arbitrary nesting of
narrative
documents, two solutions present themselves:
1. Limit the
nesting levels to some agreeable level that is "enough
levels" to satisfy
most customers wanting grouping and "not so many
levels" as to support
arbitrary narrative. This is truly a compromise in
the sense that neither
party walks away comfortable that their concerns
are addressed in the
general case. This can be easily achieved in a DTD
with e.g. "subsection"
and "subsubsection" elements.
2. Limit the nesting in the out-of-box
DITA using formally declared
constraints or prose. In addition, provide a
mechanism whereby a
knowledgable specializer can loosen the constraint for
their
specialization (not, typically, to allow indefinite nesting, but
rather
to allow the creation of grouping elements in the specialization).
The
specification can outline the dangers of this loosening and
the
situations under which we believe it is a good thing. If we can
agree
that these specializers are (in general) knowledgable and
trustworthy
then both parties achieve their goal.
Paul
Prescod
← Prev in month
← Prev in thread
Next in thread →
Next in month →