Proposal: multiple binaries, one source package

[Emma Jane Hogbin]

Jim Campbell wrote:
> Cody is right in that I learned a bit about this in the past week.  I
> learned about architecting content for re-use in the context of DITA
> [0], though, as DITA appears to be the "new black," of the technical
> side of User Assistance development.  In other words, companies are
> developing a whole bunch of proprietary tools to assist writers in
> creating DITA documents so that the writers get the benefits of DITA
> without always having to touch the code.  However, these companies are
> not doing the same kind of work for docbook.  To me, the DITA Open
> Toolkit seems all well-and-good for what it does, and it is Free
> software, but its benefits over docbook to our project are debatable.  I
> saw some discussion about DITA on a gnome-doc ML back around 2006, but
> any DITA / Docbook discussion is probably best-saved for a separate thread.

Just a quick clarification:
- DocBook is appropriate for reference manuals.
- DITA is appropriate for procedural documentation.

Their Document Type Definitions will reveal that they are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. Both can be used for single sourcing,
but their structure is meant to describe different kinds of technical
writing.



regards,
emma

-- 
Emma Jane Hogbin
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EmmaJane
https://launchpad.net/people/emmajane