Here are some prototypes for discussion:
Base:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/34012/base-langRef.gif
Technical Content:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita/download.php/34011/technicalContent-LangRef.gif
Best,
Kris
Michael Priestley wrote:
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
