Topics

specialization and lightweight DITA #specialization

annet.wezenbeek@...
 

Trying to understand if we can move from full DITA to lightweight DITA. It seems very simplified and that would mean getting rid of some elements that worked really well. Is it possible to create a specialization in lightweight DITA that uses some of the elements from full DITA? 

jang
 

Hello Annet,

Please DO NOT move from your DITA to Lightweight DITA, as it is not going to make your content better. Although specialisation can be done from Lightweight DITA to re-introduce the elements you need, I would strongly recommend applying constraints on your DITA - allowing you to pick exactly what you need from DITA and effectively hide the rest from the authoring experience.

Using constraints means that all DITA processing tools will still work without any hiccups. If you start making specialisations that have any impact on the rendering at all, you will have to create those rendering parts for the Lightweight DITA tool chain. Constraints do NOT make your DITA incompatible with anything. I often wonder why companies shy away from this mechanism, as it is the only tool you normally need to tailor your DITA vocabulary to your authoring needs.

I have personally created a DITA constraints tool for FrameMaker that allows defining constraints without ever seeing an angular bracket. This is available in the FrameMaker 2019 product (i.e. no extra purchase or download - it is part of the product as Adobe has paid for the development). If you are using <oXygen> it is quite easy to edit the RelaxNG files that are the base for DITA since version 1.3. All my GUI for FrameMaker does is allowing non-geeks to edit those RelaxNG files in a safe manner.

I hope this helps you avoiding a path to lots of disasters.

Kind regards

Jang

Smart Information Design
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Cell: +31 646 854 996

On 23 Jun 2020, 09:50 +0200, annet.wezenbeek@..., wrote:
Trying to understand if we can move from full DITA to lightweight DITA. It seems very simplified and that would mean getting rid of some elements that worked really well. Is it possible to create a specialization in lightweight DITA that uses some of the elements from full DITA? 

Westley W.
 

Tagging onto this topic; I'm new to this group.  I'm on DITA 1.2, and I have a scenario where I need to remove &nbsp; as an entity.  Would this be a situation where I can apply a constraint?

Eric Sirois
 

Hi,

No, nbsp is not part of the DITA dtds. Most folks avoid entities like Covid-19. 

So someone either added it to the DTDs or it’s getting picked from somewhere else. Possibly MathML DTDs I think they have a file that defines a whole bunch of entities.

Eric

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020, 11:36 AM, Westley W. <wamsley@...> wrote:

Tagging onto this topic; I'm new to this group.  I'm on DITA 1.2, and I have a scenario where I need to remove &nbsp; as an entity.  Would this be a situation where I can apply a constraint?

Radu Coravu
 

Hi Eric,

The "nbsp" entity is a deprecated entity but it's still part of the DITA DTDs, it is still defined in the DITA 1.3 DTDs defined in the module file:

plugins/org.oasis-open.dita.v1_3/dtd/base/dtd/topic.mod

<!-- Use of this entity is deprecated; the nbsp entity will be
     removed in DITA 2.0.                                          -->
<!ENTITY nbsp                   "&#xA0;"                             >
I think the only way to avoid defining it would be for them to have their own "topic.mod" in their DTD specialization.

Usually in cases in which you want to prohibit certain constructs, Schematron checks would prove useful but in this case the entity reference is expanded by the processor before the Schematron checks are applied so you cannot test with Schematron if an entity reference is present or not.

Regards,

Radu

Radu Coravu
Oxygen XML Editor
On 6/23/20 6:59 PM, Eric Sirois wrote:
Hi,

No, nbsp is not part of the DITA dtds. Most folks avoid entities like Covid-19. 

So someone either added it to the DTDs or it’s getting picked from somewhere else. Possibly MathML DTDs I think they have a file that defines a whole bunch of entities.

Eric

On Tuesday, June 23, 2020, 11:36 AM, Westley W. <wamsley@...> wrote:

Tagging onto this topic; I'm new to this group.  I'm on DITA 1.2, and I have a scenario where I need to remove &nbsp; as an entity.  Would this be a situation where I can apply a constraint?