I haven't checked this, but I think section is not allowed as a root
element. This means that documents beginning with <section> will
require a DocBook schema customization to validate. I have had this
problem with documents that begin with <equation>.
Maybe it would be better if someone who actually wants <topic> to make
a case for it?
On 10/27/06, Johnson, Eric <Eric...@iona.com> wrote:
As a member of a group who is currently switching from unstructured
Frame to an XML based authoring system, I think the familiarity of terms
like section and book make the move smoother. They ease the semantic
shift because we understand what a book, chapter, section, etc are.
Having read through much of the Docbook literature, I don't see any
reason why I could not write my content at the section level and then
reassemble the sections into any form that I need. It may be called a
book in mark-up, but the end result is whatever I want it to be.
Maybe a <map> element could be a useful tool to make it easier to build
a larger unit of content out of section. However, it sounds like the
current debate is about duplicating <section> with a <topic> element for
purely marketing reasons. Will the <topic> element have a different
content model? Will it be usable in ways that the current <section>
element is not? How will it make creating reusable content easier?
I'm not saying that marketing is not a good reason for adding stuff, but
it is not a great one.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rajal Shah [mailto:raj...@meshsoftware.com]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 11:33 AM
To: 'Michael(tm) Smith'; docb...@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook?
Mike -
There are a lot of organization which have based their XML
authoring/publishing infrastructure on DocBook.. They've been
writing books all this time.. Now with DITA coming to the
fore and the fact that the TechPubs groups need to provide
customized content - based on new markets or even to improve
search results to find the exact topic/article that solves
customer's issue - they are forced to consider modular writing..
The way to go about solving the issue is to provide a
mechanism within DocBook to continue producing books - as
collections of topics - as well have these individual topics
available for re-use or stand-alone..
This is a very real scenario.. And has caused a lot of
confusion over whether to switch over to DITA despite having
DocBook.. And I think DocBook would be missing the point if
they didn't address how to support modular writing as well
have a mechanism to assemble topics into a book (it does that
current with the DTD v/s a map in DITA)..
Regads.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael(tm) Smith [mailto:smi...@sideshowbarker.net]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 6:53 AM
To: docb...@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [docbook] Add topic element to DocBook?
Chris Chiasson <chr...@chiasson.name>, 2006-10-27 00:28 -0500:
I am afraid of this new <topic> element. However, I don't
want DocBook
to stagnate while DITA grows just because some people are afraid of
change.
Substitute the word "wary" for "afraid". The thing about
changes is that they often have unforeseen consequences. For
example, we decided to add Task as a child of section, and a
year or two later, we've got to figure if/how to allow Task
content in places where by design it's currently not permitted.
And I don't think there's any risk of DocBook stagnating.
It's soundly designed and is meeting the needs of its target
user base quite well. It's going to remain just as useful a
solution as it always has been: A common vocabulary and
processing infrastructure (the DocBook XSL stylesheets) that
even users/groups with very limited resources can learn and
use productively -- without the need or time or money to do
stuff like customizing/extending the schema/DTD or to write
their own sets of stylesheets.
And as far as DITA goes, I guess some might argue that it's
tuned for a different target user base: organizations that
manage large and complex sets of content and that can save a
lot of money by using a system that's specifically built,
from the ground up, to faciliate extensive content reuse and
to faciliate creation of custom markup specialized to their
particular needs.
Anyway, in spite of the possibility that the
information-mapping topic-based authoring approach may not
really be the right solution for many organizations
(especially those that aren't smart enough or careful enough
about avoiding all the possible pitfalls around it), it is
what a lot of them in the corporate tech-writing world seem
to want. And I suspect that many organizations who want that
were not using or considering DocBook to begin with; I'd
guess many had some legacy system based on authoring in, at
best, Framemaker -- and at worst, MS Word or RoboHelp or
whatever. A move by anybody away from that stuff and into any
XML and XSLT-based system is a win for all of us.
--Mike
74 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.docbookRe: [docbook] Add topic element to Do...
.pgp