|Subject:||Re: [dita-adoption-comment] RE: [dita-sidsc] Recent DITA toolinteroperability problem|
|Date:||Aug 6, 2008 11:15:17 pm|
Hi, Bob, JoAnn
There's a particular issue with Frame that it only really supports DITA 1.0. Is <related-links> part of DITA 1.1? I'm not sure.
We run into the same problems with the XML editors all the time. Most of the vendors put proprietary code into the files that makes them difficult to use in competitive editors. We even have cases in which the vendor uses ditabase but labels the items in their "open" file as concept, task, and reference. You get the wrong topic type.
We recently tried opening the Service Manual DTD from Arbortext in XMLSpy so that we could better understand the DTD. XMLSpy would not display the DTD in its graphic form because it claimed that the DTD was not valid. I don't know if XMLSpy's assertion is correct but it makes it difficult.
Thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of the Adoption TC. It may be closer to the "compliance" issue and certification to the DITA standard than purely adoption, but it is definitely an issue. I brought this very problem to the attention of the DITA TC at Tuesday's meeting.
I will bring the issue to the attention of the Adoption TC for discussion. We're trying to define our scope at this point and set up a roadmap for future work. All these issues brought to our attention really do help.
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD President Comtech Services, Inc. 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80215 303-232-7586 joan...@comtech-serv.com joannhackos Skype
From: Beims Bob [mailto:bob....@freescale.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:32 PM To: dita...@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: Semiconductor Information Design Subcommittee Subject: [dita-sidsc] Recent DITA tool interoperability problem
DITA Adoption TC;
We've recently experienced a situation in the DITA TC Semiconductor Information Design Subcommittee (SIDSC) that I wanted to pass along to you. It represents a scenario that mitigates against easy adoption of DITA, and thus presents an opportunity for some sort of best practices training to avoid it.
Here's the scenario:
1. I created a template for meeting minutes, using the Syntext Serna editor and posted it to the SC documents repository (see http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-sidsc/document.php?doc ument_id=28347). I used the base information type of "topic" for the template. 2. The template was downloaded by one of the SC members so that she could use FrameMaker 8 to capture minutes from a teleconference. 3. FrameMaker 8 told her that the file is not valid. 4. When this issue was raised during the next SC teleconference, I downloaded the file and opened it with oXygen 9.3 to check it, and was told by that editor that the file is valid. 5. As I was doing that, another member of the SC fiddled with the file using some other editor, and found that by removing the <related-links> stuff, the file would open in FrameMaker 7.2.
Hmmm... this scenario says that interoperability via an open standard may not be as easy as we'd hoped. Here we've got four different DITA-compliant editors that disagree on the validity of a DITA file.
Respectfully, Bob Beims
Chair, OASIS DITA TC SIDSC
Applications Engineer, Staff Principal Microcontroller Solutions Group Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
This e-mail, and any associated attachments have been classified as: [X]Public [ ]Freescale Semiconductor Internal Use Only [ ]Freescale Semiconductor Confidential Proprietary