[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: keyref and keydef: change to the DITA 1.2 spec., DTDs, and XSDs needed?
Included below is an e-mail exchange between Robert and myself. The long and short of it is that we think that the "special" defaults for @toc, @print, and @linking on <keydef> in the DTDs and XSDs need to be removed and the DITA 1.2 specification needs to be updated to have a somewhat longer list of attributes that should not be merged as part of key reference resolution processing. This note is to see if the rest of the DITA TC agrees. -Jeff > Sent: 03/16/2010 11:13 PM > From: "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com> > To: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS > cc: "Grosso, Paul", "Helfinstine, Dave" <dhelfinstine@ptc.com>, "Nitchie, Chris" <cnitchie@ptc.com> > Subject: keyref and keydefs? > > Robert, > > I know I retired, but I’m trying to finish up a few loose ends … > > In the following example, what is the effective value for @toc, @linking, > and @print on the topicref after the key reference has been resolved? > > <map> > . . . > <keydef keys=”abc” href=”topic.dita” /> > <topicref keyref=”abc” href=”othertopic.dita” /> > . . . > </map> > > I ask because @linking, @toc, and @print have explicit DTD defaults > on keydef and when those values are merged using the conref merging > rules, we end up with what I think are unexpected values for @linking (no), > @toc (no), and @print (no) on the resolved topicref. > > Am I looking at this correctly? > > If I am, I suspect that the way out is to remove the explicit DTD > defaults for @linking, @toc, and @print on keydef and let > @processing-role=”resource-only” take care of things. > > What is the list of attributes that should not be merged from a key > definition? Is it? > > @id > @conref, @conkeyref, and the other conref attributes > @processing-role > @xml:lang, @dir, @translate (special rules apply) > @keys, @keyref > > These probably don’t matter, but for good measure: > > @class > @domains > > In the draft DITA 1.2 spec. only @id and @keys are mentioned as not > merging. The special rules for @xml:lang, @dir, and @translate are > mentioned. > > -Jeff >> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:56 AM >> To: Ogden, Jeff >> Cc: Nitchie, Chris; Helfinstine, David; Grosso, Paul >> Subject: Re: keyref and keydefs? >> >> Hi Jeff, >> >> I think that's right (both the list of how keydef is working - in a >> confusing way - and the list of what should not be merged). The >> toc/linking/print values were given the default of "no" before we had >> the >> processing-role attribute, and that was never undone. >> >> Robert D Anderson >> IBM Authoring Tools Development >> Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit >>> Sent: 03/17/2010 04:54 PM >>> From: "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com> >>> To: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS >>> >>> >>> "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>, "Eric Sirois" <esirois@ca.ibm.com> >>> Subject: RE: keyref and keydefs? >> >>> Thanks. I'll make a local change to the DTDs and XSDs here and let Chris >>> and Dave get the updated versions from you and Eric when they become >>> available. I guess an update to the DITA 1.2 spec. is needed too. >>> >>> Do we need to send something out to the DITA TC list to make this >>> official? If so, do you want me to do it or would you like to do it yourself? >>> >>> -Jeff >>>> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:30 PM >>>> To: Ogden, Jeff >>>> Cc: Nitchie, Chris; Helfinstine, David; Eric Sirois; Grosso, Paul >>>> Subject: RE: keyref and keydefs? >>>> >>>> Hi Jeff - yes, I think it needs to go through the TC. I'd be happy if >>>> you want to send it along. :-) >>>> >>>> Thanks - >>>> >>>> Robert D Anderson >>>> IBM Authoring Tools Development >>>> Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]