Does DITA need XML? Lightweight DITA and HTML5

© IBM Corporation 2012, 2014
1
Michael Priestley
Enterprise Content Technology Strategist
Senior Technical Staff Member
Does DITA need XML?
XDITA and HDITA: A Lightweight DITA Preview
May 14, 2013

2 ©IBM Corporation 2012, 2014
Important Disclaimer
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PRESENTATION IS
PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
WHILE EFFORTS WERE MADE TO VERIFY THE COMPLETENESS AND
ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
PRESENTATION, IT IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF
ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED.
IN ADDITION, THIS INFORMATION IS BASED ON IBM’S CURRENT
PRODUCT PLANS AND STRATEGY, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
BY IBM WITHOUT NOTICE.
IBM SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT
OF THE USE OF, OR OTHERWISE RELATED TO, THIS PRESENTATION
OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS PRESENTATION IS INTENDED TO,
OR SHALL HAVE THE EFFECT OF:
• CREATING ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION FROM IBM (OR ITS
AFFILIATES OR ITS OR THEIR SUPPLIERS AND/OR LICENSORS); OR
• ALTERING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE
LICENSE AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE USE OF IBM SOFTWARE.

©IBM Corporation 2012, 2014
What’s ahead
• Why are we doing this?
• Why XML/HTML5 sucks/is awesome
• Why can’t we all just get along?
• What would that look like?

Why are we doing this?
“Here’s
something
simple!”
“We need
more
features!”
“It’s too
complex!”
“Here’s
something
simple!”
“We need
more
features!”
“It’s too
complex!”
“Here’s
something
simple!”
“We need
more
features!”
“It’s too
complex!”
SGML
XML
DITA

Evolution or revolution?
Full DITA
Lightweight
DITA
“We need
something
simple”
“We need
more
features!”
“We need
something
simple”
“We need
more
features!”
“Here’s
something
simple!”
“We need
more
features!”

But we are not alone
vi
Emacs
“It’s too
complex!!”
XHTML
“Here’s
something
simple!”
Wiki
Variant
A-Z
Word
“We need
more
features!”
“It’s too
complex!”
markdown
Lightweight
DITA
HTML5
+
extensions
“We need
more
features!”
“It’s too
complex!”
Full
DITA
HTML5
DocBook
“Grrrr”

Why XML sucks
• Tags and attributes are a pain
in the #$%#
• Specialized editors cost
money, take a long time to
load, take a long time to learn
• Long, complex processing
chain can break in lots of
different places, be really
hard to debug
<topic id=“abc”>
<title>The point of it all</title>
<shortdesc>I can sum it up here</shortdesc>
<body>
<p>I can say some more stuff</p>
<section>
<title>Stuff</title>
<p>And so on</p>
<ul>
<li><p>This</p></li>
<li><p>Is</p></li>
<li><p>A List</p></li>
</ul>
</section>
<section>
<title>And more stuff</title>
<p>With its own explanation</p>
<dl>
<dlentry>
<dt><p>This</p></dt>
<dd><p>Is explained</p></dd>
</dlentry>
<dlentry>
<dd><p>Is also explained</p></dd>
</dlentry>
</dl>
</section>
</body>
</topic>

Why XML is awesome
• Tags and attributes separate
content from presentation,
allowing flexibility and control
• Specialized editors support
different authoring roles – not
one size fits all
• Specialized content types
and structures enforce
consistency and enable
automation
• Multistage processing chain
maximizes reuse and
provides ready-to-view output
Publish
HTML5
EPUB
Kindle
iBook
PDF
Embedded
help
Word
Open
Office
Slides
Various
help
formats
Etc.
Filter,
Substitute,
Link,
Assemble,
Layout for
Device or
Format, Etc.
Design Author

Why HTML5 sucks
• Tags and attributes are a pain
in the #$%#
• Anything goes
• Single processing step can
bloat and affect performance
• No standardized capabilities
for conditional processing,
reuse, etc.
<html>
<article>
<h1>The point of it all</h1>
<p>I can sum it up here</p>
<section>
<h2>Stuff</h2>
<p>And so on</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Is</p></li>
</ul>
<section>
<h2>And more stuff</h2>
<dl>
</dl>
</section>
</article>
</html>

Why HTML5 is awesome
• Tags and attributes separate
content from presentation,
allowing flexibility and control,
including responsive design
• Editor support widely
available, even right in the
browser
• Author and present in same
interface – the browser.
• No complex processing
chain, fewer breakage points
(Filter for user)
Author View

Why can’t we all just get along?
HTML5 supports adaptive
XML supports
omnichannel
EPUB
Kindle
iBook
PDF
Embedded help
Word
Open
Office
Slides
Various help
formats
.
.
.
Aaaand HTML5

Why can’t we ALL just get along?
Tutorials
API docs
Trouble-
shooting
Prod
overviews
Tech
comm
Trainer
Developer
Support
Marketing
LCMS
WCM
CCM
KB
Usage
Learning
site
Marketing
site
Support
site
Developer
site
Code
repo

Let’s try that again…
From any source, to any channel
Content reused across applications, applications reused across content
LCMS
WCM
CCMKB
Code
repo
Learning
site
Marketing
site
Support
site
Developer
site
Tech
comm
Trainer
Developer
Support
Marketing

So what does it look like?
Lightweight DITA
XDITA and HDITA mapping
Next steps, open questions

Lightweight DITA vs full DITA
15
Full DITA Lightweight DITA
Topics 94 elements ~30 elements
Maps 10 elements
(+30 shared with topic)
~3 elements
(+1 shared with topic)
<p>What elements are
allowed in a paragraph?</p>
dl parml fig syntaxdiagram imagemap image
lines lq note hazardstatement object ol pre
codeblock msgblock screen simpletable sl
table ul boolean cite keyword apiname option
parmname cmdname msgnum varname wintitle ph
b i sup sub tt u codeph synph filepath msgph
systemoutput userinput menucascade uicontrol
q term abbreviated-form tm xref state data
data-about foreign unknown draft-comment fn
indextermref indexterm required-cleanup
dl parml fig syntaxdiagram imagemap image
lines lq note hazardstatement object ol pre
codeblock msgblock screen simpletable sl
table ul boolean cite keyword apiname option
parmname cmdname msgnum varname wintitle ph
b i sup sub tt u codeph synph filepath msgph
systemoutput userinput menucascade uicontrol
q term abbreviated-form tm xref state data
data-about foreign unknown draft-comment fn
indextermref indexterm required-cleanup
image
ph (phrase)
b (bold)
i (italic)
u (underline)
sup (superscript)
sub (subscript)
xref (link)
data
image
ph (phrase)
b (bold)
i (italic)
u (underline)
sup (superscript)
sub (subscript)
xref (link)
data

Simplified topic

Eliminate advanced features

No prolog metadata or related links

Eliminate redundant markup

Only one table model (simplified CALS)

Simplify content models

No mixed content: the only place to author
text is in a <p>, and <p> doesn't contain
lists or other block-level content
<topic id="mini"
domains="(lwdita-c)(no-nested-
topics-c) (no-nested-blocks-c)">
<title>Mini topic</title>
<body>
<p>This topic has constraints
that disallow nesting topics and
lists.</p>
<p>Additional constraints could
be applied to get rid of attribute sets
based on function, for example
eliminating conref.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Everything you write
goes inside a paragraph.</p></li>
<li><p>You can add
paragraphs, tables, lists, and
media.</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</topic>

Simplified topic

Easily modified to:

Get rid of sections or get rid of content
outside of sections

Limit lists to one level

Easy to add or remove capabilities
with attributes organized into
functional groups:

“reuse” adds @id and @conref to <p>, <ul>,
<li> etc.

“variable-content” adds @keyref to <ph>
<topic id="mini"
domains="(lwdita-c)(no-nested-
topics-c) (no-nested-blocks-c)">
<title>Mini topic</title>
<body>
<p>This topic has constraints
that disallow nesting topics and
lists.</p>
<p>Additional constraints could
be applied to get rid of attribute sets
based on function, for example
eliminating conref.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Everything you write
goes inside a paragraph.</p></li>
<li><p>You can add
paragraphs, tables, lists, and
media.</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</topic>

Simplified map

Eliminate advanced features

No metadata or reltable

Simplify content models

Only one way to specify title: as <navtitle> in
<topicmeta>
<map id="simpleTOCmap"
domains="(lwdita-c) (tocref-c)">
<topicmeta>
<navtitle>TOC map</navtitle>
</topicmeta>
<topicref href=”mini.dita”>
<topicmeta>
<navtitle>Mini topic</navtitle>
</topicmeta>
</map>

Simplified map

Easy to add or remove capabilities
with attributes organized into
functional groups:

“TOC referencing” adds @href

“Classification/variables” adds @keys

“Link indirection” adds @keyref

Out of the box maps for:

Simple TOC

Variable/taxonomy management and link
redirection
<map id="simplevarmap"
domains="(lwdita-c) (taxo-c)">
<topicmeta>
<navtitle>Variable map</navtitle>
</topicmeta>
<topicref keys=”prodname”>
<topicmeta>
<navtitle>My Product</navtitle>
</topicmeta>
</topicref>
</map>

Simplified specialization

Pull together a new specialization
out of building blocks

Assemble section types

Add phrases and attributes

So simple it can be authored instead
of coded

Use a specialized authoring topic

Fill in the fields and generate the
specialization
<specdef id=”meeting”>
<title>Meeting specialization</title>
<specdefbody>
<sectiondef>
<dl>
<dlentry>
<dt>Goals</dt>
<dd>
<p><xref href=”goals.dita”/></p>
<p>Fill the goals of the meeting</p>
</dd>
</dlentry>
......

Simplified specialization

Generate more than just DTDs

Schemas, RNG... with lightweight schemas
or starter sets for full

Overrides for publishing transforms and
editor prompts

Even a lightweight authoring prototype for
testing
<meeting id="abc123" domains="(lwdita-c)(all-
sections-c) (goals-d) (agenda-d) (minutes-d)>
<title>Minutes for 2012 July 18<title>
<shortdesc>Discussions of editor scenarios
and processing expectations.</shortdesc>
<meetingbody>
<goals>...</goals>
<agenda>...</agenda>
<minutes>...</minutes>
</meetingbody>
</meeting>

But it’s still all just XML
With all the attendant vices and virtues you’ve come to love/hate….
But does it have to be?

It comes in flavors!
XDITA (DITA in XML) HDITA (DITA in HTML5)
<topic>
<title>The point of it all</title>
<shortdesc>I can sum it up here</shortdesc>
<body>
<section>
<title>Stuff</title>
<p>And so on</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Is</p></li>
</ul>
<section>
<title>And more stuff</title>
<dl>
<dlentry>
</dlentry>
<dlentry>
</dlentry>
</dl>
<article>
<h1>The point of it all</h1>
<p>I can sum it up here</p>
<section>
<h2>Stuff</h2>
<p>And so on</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Is</p></li>
</ul>
<section>
<h2>And more stuff</h2>
<dl>
</dl>
</section>
</article>

Meet in the middle:
Specialize in XML, constrain in HTML5
XDITA HDITA
<video>
<fallback><p>Here's a video of stuff
you can't see.</p></fallback>
<controls value="y"/>
<poster value="screengrab.png"/>
<source value="mymovie.mp4"
type="video/mp4"/>
<source value="backupformat.xyz"
type="video/xyz"/>
<track value="captions.vtt"
type="captions"/>
</video>
<video controls=“controls”
poster="screengrab.png">
<source src="mymovie.mp4"
type="video/mp4"/>
<source src="backupformat.xyz"
type="video/xyz"/>
<track value="captions.vtt"
kind="captions"/>
<p>Here's a video of stuff you can't
see.</p>
</video>

Mapping maps
XDITA HDITA
<map>
<topicmeta>
<navtitle>Navigation</navtitle>
</topicmeta>
<topicref href="abc.dita">
<topicmeta>
<navtitle>Topic A</navtitle>
</topicmeta>
</topicref>
<topicref href="bcd.dita">
<topicmeta>
<navtitle>Topic B</navtitle>
</topicmeta>
<topicref href="b123.dita">
<topicmeta>
<navtitle>Topic B1</navtitle>
</topicmeta>
</topicref>
</topicref>
</map
<nav>
<h1>Navigation</h1>
<ul>
<li><a href="abc.html">Topic A</a></li>
<li><a href="bcd.html">Topic B</a>
<ul>
<li><a href="b123.html">Topic B1</a>
</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<nav>

A few attributes
XDITA HDITA
@props @data-hd-props
@abc123 (any attribute specialized
from @props)
@data-hd-abc123
@conref (on section, table,
paragraph, and list elements)
@data-hd-conref (on section, table,
paragraph, and list elements)
@keys (on topicref) @data-hd-keys (on <li> inside
<nav>)
@keyref (on <image>, <a>, and
<topicref> for link indirection, on
all inline elements for variable
text)
@data-hd-keyref (on <img> and <a>
for link indirection, on all inline
elements for variable text)

Can DITA jump formats?
vi
Emacs
“Here’s
something
simple!”
Wiki
Word
“Here’s
something
simple!!”
markdown “We need
more
features!”
“It’s too
complex!”
Full
DITA
HTML5
“Grrrr”
XDITA
HDITA
markDITA
WorDITA
WiDITA
“We need
more
features!”
“We need
more
features!”

If you like this idea…
Talk about it.
Tell people.
Especially, tell the tool developers, and the vendors.
The two main reasons vendors say they don’t support DITA:
“it’s too complicated”
“people aren’t asking for it”
We’re working on the first one – but we need your help for the second.

Join the discussion

Lightweight DITA discussion group at Linkedin:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Lightweight-DITA-4943862

Blogging about it at the DITA focus area:
http://dita.xml.org/blog/michael-priestley

Start an argument with me on twitter: @Ditaguy

Legal
IBM and the IBM logo are trademarks of International Business
Machines Corp., registered in many jurisdictions worldwide. Other
product and service names might be trademarks of IBM or other
companies. A current list of IBM trademarks is available on the Web
at “Copyright and trademark information” at
www.ibm.com/legal/copytrade.shtml

Does DITA need XML? Lightweight DITA and HTML5

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Does DITA need XML? Lightweight DITA and HTML5 (20)

More from Michael Priestley (10)

Recently uploaded (20)

Does DITA need XML? Lightweight DITA and HTML5