[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] @keyscope on <relcolspec>
I agree: the potential side effects are too great. Cheers, E. ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 4/16/15, 3:27 PM, "Chris Nitchie" <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> wrote: >I certainly never intended to have @keyscope on relcolspec. This is just >a side-effect of the reuse of the parameter entity defining those >attributes. I >strongly support its removal from relcolspec. > > >Chris >Chris Nitchie >(734) 330-2978 >chris.nitchie@oberontech.com >www.oberontech.com > <http://www.oberontech.com/> >Follow us: > <https://www.facebook.com/oberontech> > <https://twitter.com/oberontech> > <http://www.linkedin.com/company/oberon-technologies> > > See us at the DITA > North America <http://www.cm-strategies.com/2015/index.htm> 2015 >conference, April 20-22 in Chicago, Il. Learn how our expert services >and innovative solutions can meet your content and publishing needs. > > > > > > > > >From: Robert D Anderson >Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM >To: DITA TC >Subject: [dita] @keyscope on <relcolspec> > > > >While doing an exhaustive review of our new keyscope material with Kris, >I realized that the keyscope attribute is available on <relcolspec> (it's >part of the general group of topicref attributes that gets reused on >relcolspec). > >This came up because the current definition of what goes in a key scope >covers child elements in the map, along with stuff referenced by those >elements. Logically, I think a key scope on a relcolspec would have to >cover all of the reltable cells and topicrefs > from that single column of the reltable - but this isn't called out >anywhere. > >That said ... I have to wonder if we'd be better off removing @keyscope >from this element? Doing so would somewhat complicate the grammar files >(not sure how much). But, it would also simplify the definition of key >scopes (because we would not have to add language > for this case). It would also mean implementations do not have to worry >about this case, which I'm thinking is extremely unlikely. If I try, I >can come up with cases where somebody could conceivably try this - but I >can't come up with a case where the pain > of managing that sort of markup would be worth it. > >So, I think the options are - update the spec to explicitly cover this >edge case (@keyscope on relcolspec means XYZ), or my preferred option, >remove @keyscope from relcolspec. > >Thoughts? > >Robert D Anderson >IBM Authoring Tools Development >Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://www.dita-ot.org/) > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]