MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] My comments about DITA applicability torequirements and a separate standard for specialization
"W. Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com> wrote on 12/08/2004 02:40:46 PM:
> But the current topic model requires body, even though a topic without a
> body but with required subtopics is arguably perfectly meaningful (even
> though it might not be good writing practice).
>
> This is an example where current DITA is too restrictive, probably
> reflecting a business rule decision that IBM made (subtopics shall
> always be introduced) but that is inappropriate, in a general standard,
> to impose on everyone.]
FWIW, optional body is first on the list of suggested fixes documented at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200411/msg00023.html
1. Make the body element optional in base topic as well as for task, concept, and reference
The original intent was not so much a business rule as a case of nostalgia for absolutes ("doesn't every DTD have a body?"). Designing an archtetype for greatest generality means putting aside most of the conventional wisdom about the concrete instances we've worked with. We'll make a lot more headway for DITA 2.0.
Regards,
--
Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
IBM Lead DITA Architect
11501 Burnet Rd., MS 9037D018, Austin TX 78758
Ph. 512-838-8550 (T/L 678-8550)
"Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?"
--T.S. Eliot
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]