> You are agreeing with the article, aren't you? My intuition says that the critiques of "it isn't universal" and "it isn't comprehensive" have merit but witho

> You are agreeing with the article, aren't you? My intuition says that the critiques of "it isn't universal" and "it isn't comprehensive" have merit but without stronger examples it's hard to tell. But maybe the whole topic is moot because, as the post says, it was only Divio that claimed that this was the grand unifying theory of documentation. If Diataxis has distanced itself from this claim then there is no longer a need for it to be universal or comprehensive. > There aren't only 4 general document types, there are others The Diataxis author replied elsewhere in this thread reminding me that he thinks of them as modes of documentation. Which is different than doc types. The main idea in my mind is that there are other important modes of documentation that are not covered by learning, tasks, understanding, or information. That's what I was trying to work out in my comment about homepages and release notes. They seem to represent new modes.