[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Conref Push Via Keys and Implications of Normal-Mode Key Definitions
I've started trying to capture in a document more formal thinking about this issue based on the initial conversation Michael and I had. I'm still working out the details of my writeup but I think I can present my general conclusions as follows: 1. By general principle that the details of addressing should not affect semantics, it follows that whether you use @conref or @conkeyref and whether or not you use @conkeyref with keys defined on resource-only topicrefs or normal-mode topicrefs, the processing result should be the same. This argues for Michael's general position, which was that all uses of a push-target topic should reflect all pushes irrespective of the nature of the keys involved. 2. However, because keys defined on normal-mode topicrefs do unambiguously establish distinct use contexts for topics, it means that processors *could* clearly distinguish different pushes to the same topic in different use contexts. The question raised is should they and, if they should, under what circumstances? My initial reaction and the statement that started this conversation was the realization that being able to get different pushes to the same topic in different use contexts could be really powerful, because it would allow you to unilaterally modify a single topic in different use contexts where otherwise you would have to physically copy the topic or use some really ugly conditional processing to get the same effect. Or use a feature we haven't invented yet. However, in thinking it through more carefully and trying to enumerate the use cases, I am convinced that Michael's position is the only reliable one given the current DITA feature set. In particular, I identified two use cases that would be very challenging: 1. Two authors happen to use different normal-mode keys to construct conref pushes but intended their pushes to apply in all cases. 2. Some pushes to a given topic are via resource-only keys and some are via normal-mode keys that then use the resource-only keys. In this case it would be ambiguous at best what the intended resolved result would be since there could be an effective layering of pushes, which is way beyond anything we can reasonably impose on the 1.2 semantics just through implication. So my conclusion is that for DITA 1.2 conref push must *always* apply to all uses of a topic regardless of the addressing details. That is, I have come to agree with Michael's position. However, I think there is a general requirement for the ability to impose use-context-specific content onto topics. However, I'm not sure conref push the right mechanism, even if we could think of way to make authorial intent clear. I've been thinking about this requirement generally and hope to be able to make a more complete and concrete proposal for new features for DITA 1.3 that should address the requirement. Cheers, Eliot -- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 512.554.9368 www.reallysi.com www.rsuitecms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]