This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the DocBook project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [docbook] Ruminations on the future of DocBook

Jeff Biss wrote:

Another problem is how we look at the world. For example there is the discussion about a <task> element. I usually use the word "process" (high level) rather than "task" in contradistinction to "procedure" (low level). This may lead to excessive elements or not realizing one's needs are already met. This may be a poor example because there is no <process> or <task> element at the moment but there may be very closely related elements that could have used the same term. This happens a lot in programming languages such as "method" versus "function". Perhaps a careful generalization could be done to accommodate similar functionality but different terms (jargon).

Yeah, I would very much like to see a discussion of all the different domains docbook can be applied to ('use cases'), together with domain specific vocabularies. Based on this one may be able to either unify these vocabularies, or create a 'standard' vocabulary with a set of 'profiles'. I think that this is what we are doing informally right now when arguing over task vs. process vs. procedure.

Just to throw in some examples:

* technical books / articles

* working documents in software development (requirement analysis,
  architecture specs, design specs, API references)

* assignments (from homework up to project management)

* etc.

Best regards,

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]