dita — archive

DITAbase for conversion

From: Alan Houser <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:01:00 -0000



  


There is a lot going on in this thread, and I haven't been able to
fully digest everything.


I will disagree that a motivation for the general task was as a basis
for specialization. The motivation was to provide an "out-of-the-box"
specialization that would be appropriate for a larger number of use
cases than would the 1.0/1.1 task model. The current (1.0/1.1) task
model imposes constraints that are either too restrictive or
semantically irrelevant (e.g., the required <cmd>) for many
organizations.


So .... the motivation was to make DITA a better "fit", without
specialization, for a larger number of organizations and use cases.


Given this motivation, I would like to see ditabase include the general
task model. Other technical and delivery issues may take precedence,
however.


-Alan

----

Alan Houser, President
Group Wellesley, Inc.
412-363-3481
www.groupwellesley.com



Grosso, Paul wrote:
[email protected]" type="cite">
  
  

  
  

  
  My
understanding was that one of the main reasons for the general
(looser) task model was as a basis for specialization (since a
specialization
cannot be more general that its base, so you have to start with a
fairly
general one).
  
  And,
if it is used by a customer as a basis for specialization, then
what they will want to have in their version of ditabase--for all the
reasons
we want the stricter task in the TC one--is going to be their (stricter
than
general) specialization of general task.
  
  So
having a ditabase with general task will do such users no good.
  
  I
don't think we should provide such.  It will more likely
than not just cause users more problems when they think they can use
such a
ditabase with their specialized-from-general tasks.
  
  paul