Good day, Bruce.
I think I am a little confused by what is being proposed. The
concept of “packages” is not crystal clear to me. Why can packages
not share common information types? Surely I could reuse concept and glossentry
definitions in multiple packages.
Assuming that we have base abstract information types in DITA
1.3, there will still be a need to have glossentry topics and book maps in all
packages. We may want to resituate glossentry as a peer specialization to
concept rather than as a specialization of concept itself. I wouldn’t
imagine that the glossentry topic would be part of the abstract layer.
Unless I am missing something, I would recommend that we leave the
DITA 1.1 topic types where they are until we have had a chance to introduce the
abstract layer in DITA 1.3.
I apologize if I have misunderstood or I am taking the thread
back to points covered in previous conversations.
Cheers,
Rob Hanna
From: Bruce Nevin
(bnevin) [mailto:]
Sent: August 20, 2009 1:24 PM
To:
Subject: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries
This came up in the spec authoring meeting today.
The problem: <glossentry> is specialized from
<concept>. <task>, <concept>, and <reference> are in
the TechDocs package. This forces <glossentry> etc. to be restricted to
the TD package. But non-TechDocs folks need glossaries, and support for
them should be in the base.
Two solutions:
Accept this. Present it as an unfortunate fait accompli
for 1.2 -- if you want a glossary, you have to use the TD package (or
specialize your own).
Move <task>, <concept>, and <reference> back
into the base, sans TD-specific domain specializations, and include those
specializations in the TD package. Present this as an interim step toward
simplified topics being developed by the BusDocs SC.
Comment? Action?
/Bruce
