Rob,
I may be misusing the word
package. There is a grouping of TechDocs-specific parts of DITA in 1.2 and
that is what I am referring to.
/B
From: Rob Hanna [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:09 PM
To: Bruce Nevin
(bnevin); 'DITA TC'
Subject: RE: [dita] problem with packaging of
glossaries
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
