[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Open issues in DocBook transclusion proposal
Hi, as per my action item from the latest teleconference I'm sending list of issues which are to my knowledge still open in transclusion proposal together with proposed resolutions. 1. When the profiling is applied? Effectivity attributes can be specified both on def and ref elements. Someone pointed out that in DITA something like this was underspecified and could lead to different results depending on the mutual order of transclusion and profiling processing. For now I can't think of such example from the top of my head. So my current thinking is that for def and ref elements we should say that effective are only those ones that satisfy profiling conditions and that profiling applies after transclusion (this is necessary for effectivity attributes used on elements inside <def>.). 2. Should be definitionfile attribute supported on external definition file? E.g. if definition from particular file is requested <ref definitionfile="definitions.001.xml" name="corp-name"/> should be this definition file allowed to reference additional definition file. I think that this should be supported in order to have unified processing model for definition element appearing inside DocBook document and appearing as a standalone XML document. 3. Should be there option to preserve original IDs (without prefix) in output (e.g. HTML anchors) when adding prefixes during ID fixup? I think that this not necessary and that this shouldn't be specified as a part of transclusion process. 4. Should be multiple file references allowed in definitionfile attribute? I think that this is not necessary. Multiple definition elements with definitionfile attribute can be used in DocBook document to achieve same result. There is probably no strong requirement for referencing multiple other definitions from external definition file where multiple definition elements can't be used. 5. Should be ref allowed inside def? I think that yes. But resolving process should precisely define this and circular references should be prohibited. Comments welcomed! Jirka -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jirka Kosek e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz http://xmlguru.cz ------------------------------------------------------------------ Professional XML consulting and training services DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing ------------------------------------------------------------------ OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member ------------------------------------------------------------------
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]