Hi Michael, I'm grateful for your reply. All makes sense. Just to mention to the group chairs ... I flipped my status in the LwDITA SC and Adoption TC from Observer to Member when I discovered that Observers don't have posting privileges. I'll try to increase my level of participation to reflect this change in status. :-) -Alan On 2/13/17 10:26 AM, Michael Priestley wrote: Hi Alan, Welcome to the subcommittee! I think LWDITA can be both things - a lightweight topic definition in XML, and a standard for creating DITA in other formats with in some cases some smaller subset of DITA functionality. In fact the two are related - among the main drivers for LWDITA are: - complexity of full DITA - dislike of XML By simplifying the topic definition, we make a mapping to DITA in other formats possible. If you stop with simplified topic, then you don't address the industries and professions that don't like XML (including a lot of software companies with documentation projects organized around SME/programmer needs). LWDITA in XML is a subset of full DITA and is compatible with full DITA tool chains. With regards to markdown authoring, people are already authoring markdown with varying degrees of validation and varying degrees of support for variable content and reuse. What we are trying to do is standardize the mappings to DITA where possible, so that for example you can have a common taxonomy used for classification and filtering across both formats, or a common variables file for UI elements or other changeable/volatile content. Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com From: Alan Houser <
arh@groupwellesley.com> To:
dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org ,
dita-adoption@lists.oasis-open.org Date: 02/13/2017 10:10 AM Subject: [dita-lightweight-dita] reaction to LwDITA spec Sent by: <
dita-lightweight-dita@lists.oasis-open.org> I've been following LwDITA for some time. I'm pleased to see the recent progress on the spec, and acknowledge that others have put a lot of work into it. But ... I'm starting to see LwDITA as an effort to overload Markdown and HTML5 semantics to express (as much as possible) DITA features, more than an effort to develop a framework that will support low barrier-to-entry DITA authoring, and easy interchange between Markdown/HTML5 and DITA. In a vacuum, the effort to replicate DITA features in LwDITA might be fine. But an alternative exists today, with full availability of DITA features, and a reasonably small (and intuitive, IMO) vocabulary. That alternative is the DITA <topic> with the highlighting domain, and the DITA <map>. Also available today ... full tools support. (Gotta admit that I shudder at the thought of validating, let alone authoring, DITA constructs like conrefs, filtering, and keys in Markdown). Specializing and constraining <topic> to reflect goals of the current LwDITA design would be easy. Specifically, I'm thinking of limiting mixed content, and specializing new multimedia element types. I may be all wet here, but I would be curious to know the reaction of other TC members to these observations, on this list or in-person at DITA North America. -Alan