|Dick Hamilton||May 1, 2008 10:52 am|
|Fabrice (GMail)||May 9, 2008 12:10 pm|
|Johnson, Eric||May 9, 2008 12:40 pm|
|Barton Wright||May 9, 2008 1:08 pm|
|Rajal Shah||May 9, 2008 1:23 pm|
|Peter Desjardins||May 9, 2008 1:35 pm|
|Bob Stayton||May 9, 2008 2:38 pm|
|Dave Pawson||May 10, 2008 12:05 am|
|Dave Pawson||May 10, 2008 12:07 am|
|David Cramer||May 10, 2008 6:06 am|
|Rajal Shah||May 12, 2008 10:34 am|
|Subject:||RE: [docbook-apps] db 5 and Dita anyone?|
|From:||Fabrice (GMail) (fabr...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||May 9, 2008 12:10:46 pm|
IMHO, specialization would be an interesting feature to add, though targeted at advanced users. Since Docbook is explicitly designed for books, a large number of Docbook users should be able to achieve their goals with the current DTD/schema. My guess is that 10% to 20% of Docbook users would really benefit from it. More feedback on this from the community would help.
I see more value in adding "DITA-like conref" support. Content re-use is one of the key benefits you get when moving to single-source. Adding a simple way for authors to re-use small piece of content in Docbook would make a big difference!
-----Original Message----- From: Dick Hamilton [mailto:rlha...@frii.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:53 AM To: 'Dave Pawson'; docb...@lists.oasis-open.org Cc: docb...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] db 5 and Dita anyone?
You make a good point; I suspect Eliot is not familiar with Norm's article, "DITA for DocBook" (http://norman.walsh.name/2005/10/21/dita), which shows how to specialize DocBook, and provides a customization to the stylesheets to support specialization. I posted a reply to his blog entry suggesting he take a look at it and comment.
The question this does raise is whether it makes sense to include a means of specialization as part of the standard. While I like the idea of being able to specialize, I'm sure that making it a normative part of the spec is not trivial, even if we simply formalize Norm's strategy.
I'd be interested in hearing what others on the list think about formalizing specialization. To that end, I'm copying this to the docbook list, which is probably the best place for that discussion.
Dick Hamilton http://rlhamilton.net
-----Original Message----- From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dav...@dpawson.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:25 AM To: Docbook Apps Subject: [docbook-apps] db 5 and Dita anyone?
Eliot is running comments on DITA and docbook when choosing an XML vocabulary, concluding
DITA is the best answer for any XML-based document-centric application I've seen.
His last para is interesting.
why doesn't DocBook simply adopt DITA's specialization mechanism? It would cost DocBook almost nothing to add and add tremendous value. It would not require DocBook changing anything about its current markup design, except to possibly back-form some base types that are currently not explicit in DocBook but would be useful as a specialization base. But that would only make DocBook cleaner.
I'm not a DITA user. It appears Eliot hasn't looked at db5 either.
-- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk