I like this idea, too, although I do think it will require quibbling. E.g., we could start with in which partitions you've put MathML and SVG.
mag
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Bill Burns <> wrote:
I like this approach, primarily because it corrals the technology specializations. Is there a more descriptive term for the more general modules? âUtilityâ seems ambiguous. or perhaps thatâs the point.
Â
Bill Burns
Content Architect | Healthwise
|
www.healthwise.org
208.331.6917 (office)Â |Â 208.345.1897 (fax)
Â
Healthwise helps people make better health decisions.
Â
From: <>
On Behalf Of Chris Nitchie
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 10:15 AM
To:
Subject: [dita] Breaking 'Technical Content' specializations into two groups
Â
*** External email: use caution ***
As I mentioned on the call today, Iâm suggesting that we break out the general-purpose modules currently labeled âTechnical Contentâ from the more industry-specific domains also included in that package. Hereâs
how Iâd organize it:
Â
General-purpose âutilityâ modules, not particularly bound to any industry, vertical, or classification:
Concept
Reference
Task/General Task/taskreq domain
Glossary-related domains
Bookmap (and/or the new DITA 2.0 bookmap)
Abbreviation domain
Release management domain
Troubleshooting domain
SVG Domain
Â
More specific, technology-related specializations:
Â
Equation domain
Markup and XML Mention domains
MathML domain
Programming domain
Software domain
UI Domain
Â
Chris
