I think I agree with Mark, here. If you need more levels of specialization, use full DITA.
--Scott
From: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Mark Giffin
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 8:32 PM
To: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita-lightweight-dita] Re: Do we need multi-level specialization?
I vote for one level of specialization in Lightweight DITA. I have no use case for it. It seems like if you want that much specialization you should use full DITA.
Mark Giffin
Mark Giffin Consulting, Inc.
http://markgiffin.com/
On 6/26/2016 5:59 PM, Michael Priestley wrote:
OK I've had one vote on this, saying they don't need multi-level specialization.
Anyone else have input?
Do the learning and training specializations depend on more than one level?
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
[email protected]
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley
From: Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM
To: dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 06/14/2016 01:35 PM
Subject: Do we need multi-level specialization?
In our last call we were struggling with how to represent multiple levels of inheritance in Lightweight DITA, especially in non-XML forms like HTML5 and Markdown.
But backing up a bit, Don asked the question: do we even really need multiple levels in Lightweight?
Do we have any examples where multi-level specialization would be required? That is, any examples where a specialization would need to be based off another existing specialization, rather than off of elements in topic or map.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
[email protected]
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley