From: Bruce
Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 11:07
PM
To: Ogden, Jeff;
dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] proposal for DITA
1.3: same document/same topic DITA reference syntax
In
the existing syntax, null filename signifies same document, so in this
proposal . following null filename signifies same topic. A nice
symmetry:
#.
same document, same topic
#./elementid
same document, same topic, specified element within it
#topicid
same
document, specified topic within it
#topicid/elementid
same document, specified topic within it, specified element within
that
filename.dita#topicid
specified document, specified topic in it
filename.dita#topicid/elementid
specified document, specified topic in it, specified element within
that
An
element referring to itself is not supported, and I suppose it's assumed not
to occur. If there were a use case, #./. would be the appropriate syntax. Do
you want to support it just in case?
I couldn’t think of a
legitimate use case and so didn’t want to clutter things up with something
that wouldn’t be used and which might in fact be confusing or dangerous. If
there is a case where a same element reference would be useful, we could
consider adding this form.
What
happens if the topicid value is the id of the containing topic?
I don’t understand
the question. The id represented by the dot will always be the id of the
containing topic.
#topicid
== #. redundantly, or made illegal?
#topicid/elementid
== #./elementid redundantly, or made illegal?
All four of these
forms would be legal. Authors would be free to use the syntax that best meets
their needs.
This
is shorthand for potential existing syntax. That is, if filename.dita is the
name of the containing file, then
filename.dita#topicid
== #topicid or #. redundantly
filename.dita#topicid/elementid
== #topicid/elementid or #/elementid redundantly
Is the line above
missing a dot? Should it read:
filename.dita#topicid/elementid
== #topicid/elementid or #./elementid redundantly
How
is that handled now? And with this proposal, do we make it illegal, or
accept it as a redundant alternative?
I don’t see any
reason for any of these forms to be illegal. They all reference the same
element and could be used interchangeably as authors see
fit.
/Bruce
From:
Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:02
PM
To:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] proposal for DITA 1.3:
same document/same topic DITA reference syntax
Here is a proposal for DITA 1.3
or whatever comes after DITA 1.2. Not sure if this would be proposed feature
#13001 or not.
Paul Grosso and I would like the
DITA TC to consider defining a syntax for same document/same topic
references in DITA 1.3.
The DITA Specification currently
defines a syntax that provides for same document references in topics and
maps:
#mapelementid
#topicid
#topicid/elementid
A suggested syntax for same
document/same topic references is:
#.
(pound-sign dot
forward-slash)
#./elementid
(pound-sign dot forward-slash
elementid)
Where . (dot)
represents the id of the current topic.
This syntax is only used for
same document topic references. It is an error to use this syntax when a
path or filename is given or for a same document map
reference.
The uses for a same
document/same topic reference syntax are similar to the uses for the
existing same document reference syntax. The syntax allows sections of DITA
markup that include URI references to be written in a self-contained
location independent fashion. The markup could be moved from or included
from one topic document to another using copy and past, content references,
xincludes, entities, or other means without the need to adjust the URI
reference to include the id of the topic at the target
location.