Random thoughts about publishing

icon Site Feed

Labels

Acrobat DITA Open Toolkit DITA XMetaL FrameMaker DITA__TechComm DOS DRM Flash FrameMaker InDesign Microsoft Word PDF Photoshop RSS feeds STC SWF SnagIt TechComm Suite Twitter XSL DITA OT customizing specialization XSL DITA OT customizing specialization.php XSLT accessibility adobe analysis apostrophes blogs book business cake change management cmd comments concerts conferences cowbell cranky dita ditalini recipes potluck dita ditalini doctrain doctraineast07 doctraineast08 doctrainwest08 documentation drag and drop ePublisher Pro entertainment equations fish flare framemaker review free garlic georgina's gilbane08 globalization graphics WMF green hacking history humor is08 jobs localization madcap music outlook oxygen path names podcasts potluck predictions presentations print on demand publishing punctuation quark ratings recipes regular expressions reviews robohelp screen captures secured PDF specialization stc09 stc2008 structured authoring survey techcomm alliance technical writing tekom thirst for knowledge thunderbird toc2007 trademark training travel unspoken rule user group video games volunteering vote citizenship rights weather web 2.0 webcasts white papers wiki writersua2008 xmetal xml strategist xml xpubs xsl-fo xsl

Palimpsest

 

Publishing DITA without the DITA Open Toolkit: A Trend or a Temporary Detour?

Monday, December 01, 2008 — posted by Sarah O'Keefe

I estimate that about 80 percent of our consulting work is XML implementation. And about 80 percent of our XML implementation work is based on DITA. So we spend a lot of time with DITA and the DITA Open Toolkit.

I'm starting to wonder, though, whether the adoption rate of DITA and the DITA Open Toolkit is going to diverge.

For DITA, what we hear most often is that it's "good enough." DITA may not be a perfect fit for a customer's content, but our customer doesn't see a compelling reason to build the perfect structure. In other words, they are willing to compromise on document structure. DITA structure, even without specialization, offers a reasonable topic-based solution.

But for output, the requirements tend to be much more exacting. Customers want any output to match their established look and feel requirements precisely.

Widespread adoption of DITA leads to a a sort of herd effect with safety in numbers. Not so for the Open Toolkit -- output requirements vary widely and people are reluctant to contribute back to the Open Toolkit, perhaps because look and feel is considered proprietary.

The pattern we're seeing is that customers adopt the Open Toolkit when:
Customers tend to adopt non-Open Toolkit solutions when:
The software vendors seem to be encouraging this trend. In part, I think they would like to find some way to get lock-in on DITA content. Consider the following:
The strategy of supporting DITA structure through a proprietary publishing engine actually makes a lot of sense to me. From a customer point of view, you can:
It's not until you're ready to publish that you move into a proprietary environment.

To me, the interesting question is this: Will the use of proprietary publishing engines be a temporary phenomenon, or will the Open Toolkit eventually displace them in the same way that DITA is displacing custom XML structure?

Labels: , , ,


9:00 AM Permalink | |

<< Home

divider


Scriptorium Publishing | Post Office Box 12761 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 | (919) 481 2701 | info@scriptorium.com