dita-lightweight-dita — archive

Some thoughts on next steps

From: Don Day <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 03:06:00 -0000

I will not be there, but I would suggest that if there are BOF lunch tables, this topic would be excellent to put forth so that the team can visit informally with others and try to get some validation of ideas in that manner. One subtopic you might air at the table might be the name 'Lightweight DITA' and whether some other name might provide better branding and separation from heritage associations about DITA. Also, is there any reason you can't do EPPO and search-based collections with Lightweight DITA (or DITA used lightly)? There were plenty of ideas from the last meeting that could be tested against public opinion. Have fun. My goal during the relative quiet I expect next week is to get the fast-wrapping-up expedita package onto Github so that it will be available for demo implementations. -- Don On 4/18/2015 8:33 PM, Michael Priestley wrote: We had a small meeting last time, and talked about how to streamline our process to get something out sooner. What do people think about focusing our efforts on getting the core package out ASAP, with industry-specific specializations being used to validate the architecture but not necessarily including them in the package? For example, we could aim to publish a specification for V1.0 that: - defines lightweight DITA topics, maps, and specialization - defines mappings/implementations for XML, HTML5, markdown, JSON - defines a lightweight specialization document type that allows quick generation of new map and topic specializations - and links to separate pages/papers for each industry/discipline area, which can continue being developed after the initial spec is published Each domain position paper (not a formally approved spec) would cover: - value proposition of lw dita for that domain - listing of example roles and scenarios - list of example content types - at least one example specialization of one of the domain-specific content types (unless none are needed) What do folks think? I'm reluctant to push too far ahead with the core spec without some validation from the domain analysis that we're including the right things. But maybe we're asking for too exhaustive an analysis. Maybe we just need enough analysis to ensure that we've got a useful direction, and then we can release and begin iterating. Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) Enterprise Content Technology Strategist [email protected] http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley -- Don R. Day Founding Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee LinkedIn: donrday Twitter: @donrday About.me: Don R. Day Skype: don.r.day Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? --T.S. Eliot This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com