I can’t agree with the assertion that ditabase is obsolete—it has a necessary utility—Robert provided some compelling use cases from IBM (e.g., 100s of small message topics organized together in a single <dita> document).
I’ve definitely seen the ditabase document type abused as a way to avoid creating local shells because it allows unrestricted topic type nesting—I find that distasteful but it’s not exactly wrong, even if it is a big misguided.
Cheers, E.
--
Eliot Kimber http://contrext.com
From: <> on behalf of Magliery Tom <>
Date: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 6:51 PM
To: Jim Tivy <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [dita] ditabase FWIW that content is not directly from oXygen; it is from Tony Self's book The DITA Style Guide (2011), republished in oXygen docs (by arrangement). mag On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Jim Tivy <
> wrote: https://www.oxygenxml.com/dita/styleguide/webhelp-feedback/Artefact/Topics_and_Information_Types/c_Using_Ditabase.html Can we get rid of <dita> for DITA 2.0. We just had another issue here and with Oxygen posting the above we are wondering how long the ecology of tools will continue support for <dita>. I realize this was discussed a few weeks back and it seemed there was support for <dita> removal. What would be the easiest upgrade for people with <dita> files? There was some mention of needing a title but users could have an empty title or descriptive title at their option. Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail.
Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
