Group items tagged

Keys provide a way for authors to create addresses to resources through the use of a named identifier rather thanto a specific URI pointer. In other words, I can create an easy-to-remember key, like “ms-word-functions” that actually resolves to a URL “http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211982” and link to this URL using the key name in my DITA topic.

Any time a topic makes use of a key reference, that topic is explicitly binding itself to a map (or many maps), meaning that a topic is no longer a unit of information that is completely independent of any particular context in which it is assembled into. You could make the argument that any reference defined in a topic to an external resource (e.g., an image or a cross-reference to another topic) by definition creates a dependency on that topic. And arguably, the referenced (the endpoint) resource is unaware of the object that is referencing it, regardless of whether it's a topic reference or a cross-reference. But there is an additional dependency in the case of keys: Any map that references a topic with a key reference must define the key. So in a sense, not only does the map (or an ancestor map) need to know about the topic, it needs to discover what the topic is about, specifically related to any key references it points to. Consequently, somewhere along the line, at least one map must define the keys used by a topic.  Did you get all that?  Imagine what your XML authoring tools, CMS systems, and rendering platforms will need to do to manage this.

there are potential downsides too.  Keys and key references add another layer of complexity to planning the authoring, deployment and management of DITA content.  

Content that is personalized, easily found, appropriately scoped, and pleasant to interact with has a name: Adaptive Content

content should adapt to the reader as well as to the device.

Among its high points for alignment with direct-to-Web content delivery solutions, DITA provides: Close affinity to Web page writing conventions and length Intentional similarity of inner content markup names (p, ul, ol, dl, etc.) A close match in its title, short description, and body structure to the way most Web CMS tools manage their content. Maps that work so very well for representing collections of content.