Re: [dita] Order for lang ref files (Was "Re: [dita] problem with packagingof glossaries")

Hi Kris,

Maybe something like:

Topic elements

        Prolog
elements

        Body
elements

        Related-link
elements        

Map elements

        Basic
map elements

        Mapgroup
domain elements

        Subject
scheme elements

Shared elements

        Indexing
elements

        etc.

DITAVAL elements

I know I haven't captured everything
- but the basic thought would be to organize primarily around topic vs
map etc., and then within that distinction organize by order within the
doctype (when possible), or by general-to-specific or most-used to least-used
(when there is no doctype order).

If we were just laying out all elements,
then alpha order would make sense. But once we add groupings, then the
groupings aren't really useful in alpha order - they aren't things users
are looking up because they know about them, but things that add meaning
to the structure for users who don't know what they're looking for. So
the more meaning we can pack into the order the better.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)

Lead IBM DITA Architect 



http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

Kristen James Eberlein
<> 

08/21/2009 12:56 PM

To

Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA

cc

DITA TC <>

Subject

[dita] Order for lang ref files (Was
"Re: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries")

Obviously, the files are currently sorted alphabetically.
Do you have an alternative that you would favor?

Best,

Kris

Michael Priestley wrote: 

Some potential users of the base package: 

- people creating tools that work with simple content applications with
minimal structure, like unstructured blogs, news feeds, web page components...

- people who would otherwise not read the spec because it's too big, and
can now be seduced into reading just the first part, which provides a context
that makes the rest less intimidating 

Re the organization below - I'm not sure about the order but the split
looks right. 

Thanks for making this discussion concrete. 

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)

Lead IBM DITA Architect 



http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

Kristen James Eberlein
<>

08/21/2009 10:33 AM

To

DITA TC <>

cc

Subject

Re: [dita] problem with packaging of
glossaries

Two key issues: 

1.        Who do we anticipate
being the potential users of the base package? 

2.        Michael, I want you to
look at the current contents of the language reference material for both
the base and technical content version. Is this as you have been envisioning
it?

Best,

Kris