OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  Stan Doherty comments disposition

    Posted 02-13-2007 01:57

    FYI, comments from Stan Doherty and their disposition (just getting them on the list for archiving):


    > P01-L15: users -> users'


    sticking with users - "users guide" vs. "user's/users' guide" differs from style guide to style guide


    > P03-L32: contents -> content


    sticking with contents - the singular is "table of contents", so when pluralizing table, I wouldn't want to drop contents to singular - eg "basket of oranges" -> baskets of oranges, not baskets of orange.


    > P04-P05: Request for 1.2 - this section yearns for a containment
    >          diagram for all the types defined here


    logged


    > P07:     Here's a comment that might help readers. Is it true?
    >          "All specializations to the base DITA DTDs require
    >          DITA modules. Modules have no function apart from
    >          specializations." If DITA DTDs are not really useful
    >          constructs without the mod/speiclization files, that
    >          might be worth mentioning/commenting. This gets stated
    >          explicitly (I believe) in P10-L11.


    added this clarification to DTD organization:

    All element and attribute type declarations are made in modules, which are

    then integrated into a document type using a document type shell.


    And this to schema organization:

    All element and attribute type declarations are made in modules, which are

    then integrated into a document type using a head schema.


    Also added "head schema" as alternate term for "document type shell" in terminology section


    > P08:     Request for 1.2 - A table (perhaps as an appendix)
    >          specifying in columnar format which DTDs (concept
    >          etc) correlate to the .ent or .mod files. The information
    >          is all in the current table, but is not optimal for
    >          understanding.


    Are you thinking one column per doctype, with checkmarks? Will log.


    > P10:     Request for 1.2 - A table (perhaps as an appendix)
    >          specifying in columnar format which schema xsd files
    >          correlate to which common module xsd. The information
    >          is all in the current table, but is not optimal for
    >          understanding.


    Done as per previous.


    > P16:     So is the generic type a base topic type or an
    >          exception/workaround to the 1.0 base topic types?
    >          Is "generic" synonymous with "unspecialized"?


    yes to both - adding clarification (for specializers, a base; for authors, a workaround/exception)


    > P22:     Mentioning that glossary structure can be processed
    >          for online or book output seems harmless enough.


    added explanation that glossary topics go into glossaries, which may have many forms.


    > P23-L23: contents -> content


    per previous, "tables of contents" is correct - I suspect it's your editorial eye catching the pluralization of the second noun in a compound, which would be wrong except in this case (where it's already pluralized in the singular)


    > P23f:    Addition? "DITA maps are specific to particular
    >          target output formats whereas topics are (most
    >          often) independent of output. To process/publish
    >          the same content to two output formats, you need
    >          two DITA maps." The current language around
    >          "scalable reuse of content across multiple
    >          contexts" is a bit sqooshy. This gets stated more\
    >          explicitly on P24-L21.


    This is a stronger statement than I'm comfortable making. Most people I know are actually using the same map to produce both print and online output, with only minor variants controlled using attributes. So while the ability to have two different maps for different output formats is valuable, it's not defining.


    > P32-L14: / -> .
    > P36-L25: on -> in ?


    done, and done


    > P43-L11: The sentence "Fragments of DITA ... " still throws me.
    >          It may well be a dummy thing on my end, but some sort
    >          of clarification or exemplification would help.


    done - added clarification:

    Fragments of DITA content (such as a document containing only a single paragraph)

    do not contain enough information on their own to allow the conref processor

    to determine the validity of a reference to them.





  • 2.  RE: [dita] Stan Doherty comments disposition

    Posted 02-13-2007 14:17
     
    
    >