This is something I had to defend at my current employer
too.. So would like
to share my perspective..
I do see the benefits of topic-based XML aproach - as
suggested by DITA and
S1000D.. It clearly is a good model to discuss XML chunks
and suggests
authoring content in a modular format up front and not keep
the book in
mind.. (It has implications on the writing style and the
flow of content in
topics and books)..
DocBook (or any other book DTD) can also support reuse
simply by the fact
that is uses XML and thus can leverage XInclude or File
Entities in DTDs..
In other words any XML system - even if it is built with a
book in mind -
supports reuse concepts just as easily..
For e.g. if you're gonna use DITA (since Camille mentioned
it), and if
you're not gonna specialize it any further, then that is
the equivalent of
using <sections> tags in DocBook.. You just create
topics as sections and
store each topic separately in the filessytem and then
instead of using a
ditamap use the DocBook DTD to assemble it as a book.
It would be nice to have some sort of a DITAMAP equivalent
to help
assembling books as collections as part of the XML
specification.. That
seems to be the missing piece in XML which DITA and S1000D
has addressed in
their solution.
Advanced XML use
---------------------
A good way to link/reuse chunks though is to use meaningful
tags that are
meaningful to your business and authors instead of treating
everythign as a
section or concept, task and reference as in DITA.. for e.g.
<hardware-specification>, <verification-task>,
<order-info> etc.. And since
each business will have its own preferences, I look at
open-source standards
as a building block that needs to be customized as per the
business needs..
What was ironix is that I've attended a lot of DITA
presentation where they
say that specialization is too erstrictive, not-DITA anymore
etc.. and they
recommended against using specialization completely.. My
ding on DITA is
that without specialization, you're not much different then
what DocBook acn
do with using section tags.. The only benefit then is the
idea od a DITA
map - which, as I've said - should not be part of DITA but
an XML standard..
Regards.
--
Rajal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rowland, Larry" <larry.rowland hp.com>
To: "Scott Hudson" <scott.hudsonflatironssolutions.com>; "Camille
Bégnis"
<camilleneodoc.biz>
Cc: "docbooklist" <docbooklists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: [docbook] Polymorphic Modular DocBook
> Hello Camille,
>
> I have to agree with Scott. I have had excellent
success with content
> reuse based on DocBook, both within and among
documents. Furthermore,
> with the XML tools that are currently available, I find
that the whole
> idea of arbitrary chunking of content into some level
of container for
> reuse is no longer critical. I have been able to reuse
content from the
> middle of a file by referencing the ID on the element
and then pulling it
> into place where I need it.
>
> I also find that inclusion works best on a level below
the
> chapter-equivalent elements. The chapter element
typically has the
> introductory information appropriate to the context in
which the
> information is being presented. I reuse sections,
tables, and admonitions
> quite frequently and have even, on occasion, reused an
introductory
> paragraph. With XPATH based inclusion operators (such
as xinclude,
> although we wrote our own to allow converting among
similar grammars on
> the fly), I can "chunk" on any element,
without regard to where it is
> located in the file; just provide the filepath and the
XPATH to access
> anything inside the file. With many processors, the
file reference can
> include an HTTP reference, which we use for accessing
content across
> repositories.
>
> Regards,
>
> Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hudson [mailto:scott.hudsonflatironssolutions.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:55 AM
> To: Camille Bégnis
> Cc: docbooklist
> Subject: Re: [docbook] Polymorphic Modular DocBook
>
> Hi Camille,
>
> IMO, DocBook works very well for modular documentation.
That said, I
> usually recommend chunking at the section level,
leaving the book,
> chapters, etc. as "assembly
templates/documents". The book and chapters
> contain the higher level wrappers and additional
verbage that is
> appropriate for that level, and then contain entity
references or
> XIncludes to the section-level chunks that are to be
reused.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --Scott
>
> Camille Bégnis wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I used big words in the subject, but it's a simple
issue: When doing
>> modular DocBook, it sometimes happen that a
"chapter" module wants to be
>> reused as an "appendix" for example...
>>
>> Is the only solution to use tinier modules by
chunking at the "section"
>> level, or is there something more intelligent?
>>
>> Or should we consider DocBook is not meant to be
extremely modular,
>> other grammars like DITA are more suited?
>>
>> Interested in hearing your experience.
>>
>> Camille.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>>
iD8DBQFEmonQjv9P65BfOUMRAuqFAJ9RlFh43Jn//l5LCaP9/yN1S8D2qQCf
RxNG
>> IV+TMnLp+nz+mQJ5OBN92fg=
>> =iban
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribelists.oasis-open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-helplists.oasis-open.org
>
>
> --
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribelists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-helplists.oasis-open.org
>
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribelists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-helplists.oasis-open.org
|