Isn’t what we ended up with was just “convenience”
packaging. The real OASIS standard includes everything and there is an “everything”
package.
I don’t think that it is possible to come up with any one
set of packages that will meet all needs. Some use will require multiple prerequisite
or “base” packages (base+Technical Content in this case).
The idea behind convenience packaging was to break things down
into smaller more understandable and more manageable groupings of related files
that would be convenient for many users. But we understood that there will be dependencies
between packages and that some existing and some new specializations will
require multiple prerequisite packages. Or some organizations may choose to
repackage the material as it comes from OASIS into new packages of their own that
work better for their purposes or with their specializations.
Given this I don’t see a need to move glossentry.
And I certainly don’t want to move concept, reference, and task. If
you move them all, what is left in the Technical Communication package?
-Jeff
From: Bruce Nevin
(bnevin) [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 2:53 PM
To: ; DITA TC
Subject: RE: [dita] problem with packaging of glossaries
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
