> the original Divio page doesn’t have this disclaimer and instead has big quote calling it the “The Grand Unified Theory of Documentation”. Procida doesn’t seem to be believe this and I wish divio would stop pitching 4doc as the one-and-only documentation system
This is a key point. I still equate Diataxis with this notion as the grand unified theory of documentation, because that's how it was originally billed. If Diataxis is no longer claiming to be anything close to a grand unified theory, then there's no point in debating whether it's universal or comprehensive. But the way that Diataxis talks about modes of documentation suggests to me that it still might be aiming towards universality and comprehensiveness. Put another way, are there other modes of docs that Diataxis doesn't mention? If these are the only 4 conceivable modes then doesn't that suggest that Diataxis is still aiming to be universal and comprehensive?
I personally think that it's worthwhile to formulate it as an attempt at a grand unified theory because for one, most people agree that it's a useful foundation, and for two, the "modes of documentation" approach lends itself well to further refinement. It basically boils down to researching/discovering whether there are more modes of documentation out there and debating whether the 4 existing modes are truly the most fundamental modes.
[1] The author of Diataxis who replied elsewhere in this thread
> the original Divio page doesn’t have this disclaimer and instead has big quote calling it the “The Grand Unified Theory of Documentation”. Procida doesn’t seem to be believe this and I wish divio would stop pitching 4doc as the one-and-only documentation system
This is a key point. I still equate Diataxis with this notion as the grand unified theory of documentation, because that's how it was originally billed. If Diataxis is no longer claiming to be anything close to a grand unified theory, then there's no point in debating whether it's universal or comprehensive. But the way that Diataxis talks about modes of documentation suggests to me that it still might be aiming towards universality and comprehensiveness. Put another way, are there other modes of docs that Diataxis doesn't mention? If these are the only 4 conceivable modes then doesn't that suggest that Diataxis is still aiming to be universal and comprehensive?
I personally think that it's worthwhile to formulate it as an attempt at a grand unified theory because for one, most people agree that it's a useful foundation, and for two, the "modes of documentation" approach lends itself well to further refinement. It basically boils down to researching/discovering whether there are more modes of documentation out there and debating whether the 4 existing modes are truly the most fundamental modes.
[1] The author of Diataxis who replied elsewhere in this thread