OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  Feedback from Mary McRae

    Posted 05-28-2010 14:04
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Hi, fellow TC members.

    We got feedback from Mary McRae about the draft of the DITA 1.2 spec yesterday. I've added Mary's comments to a Wiki page, to make them easier to read -- and to make it easier for us to track our progress in fixing issues:

    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/CD01

    If you browse through the page, you'll see that we are left with four main areas of work or negotiation:
    • Need for a namespace document
    • (PDF) Stylistic improvements, to better align it with OASIS templates (footers, styles for various levels of titles)
    • (PDF) Need to fix text overruns in tables
    • (XHTML) Mary has requested changes from how the DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 specs were issued:
      • Number all topics with section and subsection numbers
      • Remove link previews generated from <shortdesc> elements, to remove duplication
      • Ensure that all topics contain a link to the "Next" topic in the reading order
    I've requested feedback from Mary about which issues need to addressed before we can issue the spec for public review. I sincerely hope that she will permit us to finish refining our PDF styling during the public review. However, the first and second changes requested to the XHTML output call for more serious reflection, as they are departures from how we've done things previously and arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.

    Thoughts from other TC members?

    The third XHTML item either already is effectively handled -- the URL at the bottom of each topic takes the reader back to the appropriate bookmark for the topic in the TOC -- or could be addressed by an override that IBM uses for their tutorial specialization.

    Best,

    Kris

    Kristen James Eberlein
    Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
    Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
    Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
    www.eberleinconsulting.com
    +1 919 682-2290; keberlein (skype)





  • 2.  RE: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae

    Posted 05-28-2010 14:43
    
    
    
    
    
    > departures from how we've done things previously and
    > arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.
     
    Insofar as it conflicts with 'DITA principles', the counter to this is that this spec should exemplify what it specifies and the recommendations of the Adoption TC. This is obviously not true of all OASIS standards, but clearly appropriate for a standard that is effective on documentation and is applied to the documentation of the standard itself. It is that recursive self-application that should exempt DITA from some across-the-board generalizations. Fortunately, we're not bedevilled with small minds in OASIS, so we should be able to avoid a foolish consistency. (That said, it applies equally to clinging to "how we've done things previously" without such warrant.)
     
        /B


    From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:kris@eberleinconsulting.com]
    Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:04 AM
    To: DITA TC
    Subject: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae

    Hi, fellow TC members.

    We got feedback from Mary McRae about the draft of the DITA 1.2 spec yesterday. I've added Mary's comments to a Wiki page, to make them easier to read -- and to make it easier for us to track our progress in fixing issues:

    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/CD01

    If you browse through the page, you'll see that we are left with four main areas of work or negotiation:
    • Need for a namespace document
    • (PDF) Stylistic improvements, to better align it with OASIS templates (footers, styles for various levels of titles)
    • (PDF) Need to fix text overruns in tables
    • (XHTML) Mary has requested changes from how the DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 specs were issued:
      • Number all topics with section and subsection numbers
      • Remove link previews generated from <shortdesc> elements, to remove duplication
      • Ensure that all topics contain a link to the "Next" topic in the reading order
    I've requested feedback from Mary about which issues need to addressed before we can issue the spec for public review. I sincerely hope that she will permit us to finish refining our PDF styling during the public review. However, the first and second changes requested to the XHTML output call for more serious reflection, as they are departures from how we've done things previously and arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.

    Thoughts from other TC members?

    The third XHTML item either already is effectively handled -- the URL at the bottom of each topic takes the reader back to the appropriate bookmark for the topic in the TOC -- or could be addressed by an override that IBM uses for their tutorial specialization.

    Best,

    Kris

    Kristen James Eberlein
    Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
    Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
    Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
    www.eberleinconsulting.com
    +1 919 682-2290; keberlein (skype)





  • 3.  RE: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae

    Posted 05-28-2010 14:58
    With regards to the override IBM uses for the tutorial specialization - I'm
    certain that can be applied here to create next/previous links that take
    you directly from the first topic to the last. That said - it's not a "Oh,
    just apply that style" sort of thing - it would require some amount of new
    coding and testing. I'm not really sure how much at this point. In other
    words, if this is a "stop ship" requirement, I need to know as soon as
    possible so that I can get started adapting that code to the spec.
    
    Robert D Anderson
    IBM Authoring Tools Development
    Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
    
    
                                                                               
                 "Bruce Nevin                                                  
                 (bnevin)"                                                     
                 


  • 4.  Re: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae

    Posted 05-28-2010 15:02
    
    
      
    
    
    The request to remove shortdesc link previews strikes me as
    counterproductive for readers. I'm reminded of Paul Prescod's
    ever-so-useful reminder about why duplicating user-facing hints is
    goodness (http://www.stylusstudio.com/xsllist/199809/post60200.html):
        In a rendition, data should often be sorted according to some rule that
        will help human navigation....
        Transformations are the basis of all XML processing. I expect that within
        a few years all XML-processing applications will have transformation
        engines built in. Style application are just the start.
    
    
    So this item, at least, is one I think we should push back on. The preview has been present on all DITA spec productions in the past, and it is a clear demonstration of the value of single-source maintenance of content that lends itself to affordances that come at great cost to spec formats that lack this proof-point of DITA's value.

    Regarding the namespace document, would it be enough just to resurrect the discussions to which Eliot and others have referred and just dump a brief summary into the requested topic?
    --
    Don Day
    Chair, OASIS DITA TC

    Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
    6D6F1AB5D0078540A309D4BACDCFA8E601A573A2@XMB-RCD-104.cisco.com" type="cite">
    > departures from how we've done things previously and
    > arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.
     
    Insofar as it conflicts with 'DITA principles', the counter to this is that this spec should exemplify what it specifies and the recommendations of the Adoption TC. This is obviously not true of all OASIS standards, but clearly appropriate for a standard that is effective on documentation and is applied to the documentation of the standard itself. It is that recursive self-application that should exempt DITA from some across-the-board generalizations. Fortunately, we're not bedevilled with small minds in OASIS, so we should be able to avoid a foolish consistency. (That said, it applies equally to clinging to "how we've done things previously" without such warrant.)
     
        /B


    From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:kris@eberleinconsulting.com]
    Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:04 AM
    To: DITA TC
    Subject: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae

    Hi, fellow TC members.

    We got feedback from Mary McRae about the draft of the DITA 1.2 spec yesterday. I've added Mary's comments to a Wiki page, to make them easier to read -- and to make it easier for us to track our progress in fixing issues:

    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/CD01

    If you browse through the page, you'll see that we are left with four main areas of work or negotiation:
    • Need for a namespace document
    • (PDF) Stylistic improvements, to better align it with OASIS templates (footers, styles for various levels of titles)
    • (PDF) Need to fix text overruns in tables
    • (XHTML) Mary has requested changes from how the DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 specs were issued:
      • Number all topics with section and subsection numbers
      • Remove link previews generated from <shortdesc> elements, to remove duplication
      • Ensure that all topics contain a link to the "Next" topic in the reading order
    I've requested feedback from Mary about which issues need to addressed before we can issue the spec for public review. I sincerely hope that she will permit us to finish refining our PDF styling during the public review. However, the first and second changes requested to the XHTML output call for more serious reflection, as they are departures from how we've done things previously and arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.

    Thoughts from other TC members?

    The third XHTML item either already is effectively handled -- the URL at the bottom of each topic takes the reader back to the appropriate bookmark for the topic in the TOC -- or could be addressed by an override that IBM uses for their tutorial specialization.

    Best,

    Kris

    Kristen James Eberlein
    Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
    Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
    Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
    www.eberleinconsulting.com
    +1 919 682-2290; keberlein (skype)





    --
    --
    "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
    Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
    --T.S. Eliot


  • 5.  Re: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae: Template for namespace document

    Posted 05-28-2010 17:17
    
    
      
    
    
    Regarding the namespace document, here is a link
    to the OASIS template for it:
    http://docs.oasis-open.org/templates/namespace.html


    Best,

    Kris

    Kristen James Eberlein
    Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
    Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
    Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
    www.eberleinconsulting.com
    +1 919 682-2290; keberlein (skype)




    On 5/28/2010 11:01 AM, Don Day wrote:
    4BFFDADA.4000500@bga.com" type="cite"> The request to remove shortdesc link previews strikes me as counterproductive for readers. I'm reminded of Paul Prescod's ever-so-useful reminder about why duplicating user-facing hints is goodness (http://www.stylusstudio.com/xsllist/199809/post60200.html):
        In a rendition, data should often be sorted according to some rule that
        will help human navigation....
        Transformations are the basis of all XML processing. I expect that within
        a few years all XML-processing applications will have transformation
        engines built in. Style application are just the start.
    
      
    So this item, at least, is one I think we should push back on. The preview has been present on all DITA spec productions in the past, and it is a clear demonstration of the value of single-source maintenance of content that lends itself to affordances that come at great cost to spec formats that lack this proof-point of DITA's value.

    Regarding the namespace document, would it be enough just to resurrect the discussions to which Eliot and others have referred and just dump a brief summary into the requested topic?
    --
    Don Day
    Chair, OASIS DITA TC

    Bruce Nevin (bnevin) wrote:
    6D6F1AB5D0078540A309D4BACDCFA8E601A573A2@XMB-RCD-104.cisco.com" type="cite">
    > departures from how we've done things previously and
    > arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.
     
    Insofar as it conflicts with 'DITA principles', the counter to this is that this spec should exemplify what it specifies and the recommendations of the Adoption TC. This is obviously not true of all OASIS standards, but clearly appropriate for a standard that is effective on documentation and is applied to the documentation of the standard itself. It is that recursive self-application that should exempt DITA from some across-the-board generalizations. Fortunately, we're not bedevilled with small minds in OASIS, so we should be able to avoid a foolish consistency. (That said, it applies equally to clinging to "how we've done things previously" without such warrant.)
     
        /B


    From: Kristen James Eberlein [mailto:kris@eberleinconsulting.com]
    Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 10:04 AM
    To: DITA TC
    Subject: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae

    Hi, fellow TC members.

    We got feedback from Mary McRae about the draft of the DITA 1.2 spec yesterday. I've added Mary's comments to a Wiki page, to make them easier to read -- and to make it easier for us to track our progress in fixing issues:

    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/CD01

    If you browse through the page, you'll see that we are left with four main areas of work or negotiation:
    • Need for a namespace document
    • (PDF) Stylistic improvements, to better align it with OASIS templates (footers, styles for various levels of titles)
    • (PDF) Need to fix text overruns in tables
    • (XHTML) Mary has requested changes from how the DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 specs were issued:
      • Number all topics with section and subsection numbers
      • Remove link previews generated from <shortdesc> elements, to remove duplication
      • Ensure that all topics contain a link to the "Next" topic in the reading order
    I've requested feedback from Mary about which issues need to addressed before we can issue the spec for public review. I sincerely hope that she will permit us to finish refining our PDF styling during the public review. However, the first and second changes requested to the XHTML output call for more serious reflection, as they are departures from how we've done things previously and arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.

    Thoughts from other TC members?

    The third XHTML item either already is effectively handled -- the URL at the bottom of each topic takes the reader back to the appropriate bookmark for the topic in the TOC -- or could be addressed by an override that IBM uses for their tutorial specialization.

    Best,

    Kris

    Kristen James Eberlein
    Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
    Secretary, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
    Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
    www.eberleinconsulting.com
    +1 919 682-2290; keberlein (skype)





    --
    --
    "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
    Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
    --T.S. Eliot



  • 6.  RE: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae: Template for namespace document

    Posted 06-09-2010 15:23
    
    > 


  • 7.  Re: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae

    Posted 05-28-2010 21:07
    I agree generally with Bruce: we're producing a spec that happens to be
    authored using DITA markup, not a technical document authored and delivered
    using modular tech doc best practices.
    
    In particular, the requirements and practices of standards are necessarily
    different from those of technical documentation generally. In particular,
    redundancy must be avoided and every clause needs to have a clear and
    persistent identifier in all renditions.
    
    Even though we, as the authors, know the shortdesc-generated links are
    always identical to the shortdesc as presented in the linked topics, readers
    cannot know that, thus the perception of redundancy. Likewise any place that
    conref has been used to reflect the same content in two locations.
    
    In the work I did for the FASB, where we were documenting a standard, we
    used a special element to capture the clause numbers, rather than relying on
    automatic numbering. This type of approach may be required for the DITA
    spec, at least for the Arch Spec (the lang ref has natural identifiers since
    each tag name must be globally unique).
    
    Cheers,
    
    Eliot
    
    On 5/28/10 9:42 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" 


  • 8.  Re: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae

    Posted 05-28-2010 21:39

    Hi Eliot,

    I also agree with Bruce, but to different ends :-) That is, in the case of child link summaries, they exemplify a DITA best practice, and the DITA spec should practice what it preaches.

    We could, of course, simply eliminate all overviews and introductory material. Those types of material are inherently redundant. But I can't imagine that's the intent of Mary's feedback. Intros and overviews make the world go round, and make specs easier to absorb. It is a useful and obvious redundancy.

    Our use of child-link summaries allows automation of this redundancy, which makes it even more obvious, more consistent, and less error-prone. I don't think we should be penalized for doing a DITA-like job of handling intro material.

    Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
    Lead IBM DITA Architect
    mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25


    From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>
    To: "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com>, dita <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
    Date: 05/28/2010 05:07 PM
    Subject: Re: [dita] Feedback from Mary McRae





    I agree generally with Bruce: we're producing a spec that happens to be
    authored using DITA markup, not a technical document authored and delivered
    using modular tech doc best practices.

    In particular, the requirements and practices of standards are necessarily
    different from those of technical documentation generally. In particular,
    redundancy must be avoided and every clause needs to have a clear and
    persistent identifier in all renditions.

    Even though we, as the authors, know the shortdesc-generated links are
    always identical to the shortdesc as presented in the linked topics, readers
    cannot know that, thus the perception of redundancy. Likewise any place that
    conref has been used to reflect the same content in two locations.

    In the work I did for the FASB, where we were documenting a standard, we
    used a special element to capture the clause numbers, rather than relying on
    automatic numbering. This type of approach may be required for the DITA
    spec, at least for the Arch Spec (the lang ref has natural identifiers since
    each tag name must be globally unique).

    Cheers,

    Eliot

    On 5/28/10 9:42 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote:

    >> departures from how we've done things previously and
    >> arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.
    >  
    > Insofar as it conflicts with 'DITA principles', the counter to this is that
    > this spec should exemplify what it specifies and the recommendations of the
    > Adoption TC. This is obviously not true of all OASIS standards, but clearly
    > appropriate for a standard that is effective on documentation and is applied
    > to the documentation of the standard itself. It is that recursive
    > self-application that should exempt DITA from some across-the-board
    > generalizations. Fortunately, we're not bedevilled with small minds in OASIS,
    > so we should be able to avoid a foolish consistency
    > <
    http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html> . (That said, it applies equally to
    > clinging to "how we've done things previously" without such warrant.)
    >  
    >     /B
    >
    >>  
    >>  
    >>
    >>  From: Kristen James Eberlein  [
    mailto:kris@eberleinconsulting.com]
    >> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010  10:04 AM
    >> To: DITA TC
    >> Subject: [dita] Feedback from Mary  McRae
    >>
    >>  
    >> Hi, fellow TC members.
    >>
    >> We got feedback  from Mary McRae about the draft of the DITA 1.2 spec
    >> yesterday. I've added  Mary's comments to a Wiki page, to make them easier to
    >> read -- and to make it  easier for us to track our progress in fixing issues:
    >>
    >>
    http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/CD01
    >>
    >> If  you browse through the page, you'll see that we are left with four main
    >> areas  of work or negotiation:
    >>  
    >> * Need for a namespace document
    >> * (PDF) Stylistic improvements, to better align it with  OASIS templates
    >> (footers, styles for various levels of titles)
    >> * (PDF) Need to fix text overruns in tables
    >> * (XHTML) Mary has requested changes from how the DITA  1.0 and DITA 1.1
    >> specs
    >> were issued:  
    >>> * Number all topics with section and subsection  numbers
    >>> *  
    >>> * Remove link previews generated from  <shortdesc> elements, to remove
    >>> duplication  
    >>> * Ensure that all topics contain a link to the "Next"  topic in the reading
    >>> order
    >> I've  requested feedback from Mary about which issues need to addressed
    >> before
    >> we  can issue the spec for public review. I sincerely hope that she will
    >> permit us  to finish refining our PDF styling during the public review.
    >> However, the  first and second changes requested to the XHTML output call for
    >> more serious  reflection, as they are departures from how we've done things
    >> previously and  arguably counter-intuitive to DITA principles.
    >>
    >> Thoughts from other TC  members?
    >>
    >> The third XHTML item either already is effectively handled --  the URL at the
    >> bottom of each topic takes the reader back to the appropriate  bookmark for
    >> the topic in the TOC -- or could be addressed by an override that  IBM uses
    >> for their tutorial specialization.
    >>
    >> Best,
    >>
    >> Kris
    >>
    >> Kristen James  Eberlein
    >> Principal consultant, Eberlein Consulting
    >> Secretary, OASIS DITA  Technical Committee
    >> Charter member, OASIS DITA Adoption Committee
    >>
    www.eberleinconsulting.com <http://www.eberleinconsulting.com/>
    >> +1 919 682-2290;  keberlein (skype)
    >>
    >>

    --
    Eliot Kimber
    Senior Solutions Architect
    "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
    Main: 512.554.9368
    www.reallysi.com
    www.rsuitecms.com


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
    https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php