dita — archive

Re: [dita] My comments about DITA applicability torequirements and a separate standard for specialization

From: Don Day
To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:33:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















dita message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Re: [dita] My comments about DITA applicability torequirements and 	a	separate standard for specialization




From: Don Day <[email protected]>
To: "W. Eliot Kimber" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 15:32:33 -0600







"W. Eliot Kimber" <[email protected]> wrote on 12/08/2004 02:40:46 PM:


> But the current topic model requires body, even though a topic without a

> body but with required subtopics is arguably perfectly meaningful (even

> though it might not be good writing practice).

>

> This is an example where current DITA is too restrictive, probably

> reflecting a business rule decision that IBM made (subtopics shall

> always be introduced) but that is inappropriate, in a general standard,

> to impose on everyone.]



FWIW, optional body is first on the list of suggested fixes documented at

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00023.html


1. Make the body element optional in base topic as well as for task, concept, and reference


The original intent was not so much a business rule as a case of nostalgia for absolutes ("doesn't every DTD have a body?").   Designing an archtetype for greatest generality means putting aside most of the conventional wisdom about the concrete instances we've worked with.  We'll make a lot more headway for DITA 2.0.


Regards,

--

Don Day <[email protected]>

Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee

IBM Lead DITA Architect

11501 Burnet Rd., MS 9037D018, Austin TX 78758

Ph. 512-838-8550   (T/L 678-8550)


"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
    --T.S. Eliot




Follow-Ups:

replacement for information type terminology?
From: Michael Priestley <[email protected]>



References:

Re: [dita] My comments about DITA applicability torequirements and a 	separate standard for specialization
From: "W. Eliot Kimber" <[email protected]>






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]