Some follow-up thoughts after sleeping on the topic for a night and reading everyone else's comments: * There's a bit of a "have your cake and eat it too" prob

Some follow-up thoughts after sleeping on the topic for a night and reading everyone else's comments: * There's a bit of a "have your cake and eat it too" problem with Diataxis. The key underlying idea of Diataxis is that it represents modes of documentation, not concrete doc types. In that regard it's super counterproductive for us to discuss Diataxis as "the 4doc model". But on the other hand Diataxis does map each mode of documentation to a concrete doc type (Learning => Tutorial, Task => How-To Guide, Information => Reference, Understanding => Explanation) so I think it's understandable for people to conflate the two. Also, to make Diataxis useful, you have to be able to translate the ideas to the real world quickly. My impression at the moment is that Diataxis might be a little too abstract and it's causing us to have discussions where we just keep circling around the same ideas and arguing about definitions rather than actually having conversations that lead to documentation innovation. * The article brings up a great point that Divio was initially billed as the grand unified theory of documentation, but Diataxis has moved away from that phrasing. Based on how Diataxis deals with modes of documentation I do think that it's essentially still attempting to be an attempt at a grand unified theory. And that's a good thing! Most of us agree that it's a useful foundation. The main questions in my mind are these: 1) are there any other modes out there? 2) is learning/tasks/understanding/information the most useful way to think about the fundamental modes? The main research approach for figuring out these questions is to look at real docs in the wild and then contemplate how they relate to modes.