[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] DITA 1.2 Review Comment: Thoughts on topicgroup, navtitle, and locktitle
None of us likes being backed into an icky corner of inconsistency; abstracting that layer of complaint about the 'unavoidable consequences' of adding <navtitle> to <topicmeta>, we might be near a kind of churning agreement in the problem description, with a may/must difference still outstanding in the proposed solution. It doesn't matter so much where <topicgroup> 'gets' its 'groupness' from. I think you're in agreement that "A topicref that contains other elements also has the semantic[s] of groupness. The distinguishing feature of topicgroup is not that it has the semantic[s] of groupness, but that the only semantic[s] it has is groupness." The question is what exactly the 'groupness' of <topicgroup> amounts to at processing time. What does the processor do about it? Doug, your proposal sounds to me like: 1. Tell users not to specify <navtitle> in the <topicmeta> of <topicgroup>, even though they can. 2. For those inevitable cases where they do this anyway, hey whatever floats your boat, processor. Eliot, you reject a laissez faire version of (2). For you, the spec should say: 2. The processor MUST ignore <navtitle> in the <topicmeta> of <topicgroup>, because "[T]o give a topicgroup a navtitle is to contradict its reason for existence. That is why it has no navtitle attribute." Those quoted words of yours, Doug, are in agreement with what I quoted from Eliot in the 2nd paragraph above; maybe agreement is not so far away on this may/must distinction as well? /B > -----Original Message----- > From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 9:06 AM > To: Doug Morrison > Cc: dita; Robert D Anderson; Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Nitchie, Chris > Subject: Re: [dita] DITA 1.2 Review Comment: Thoughts on > topicgroup, navtitle, and locktitle > > On 8/25/10 7:02 AM, "Doug Morrison" <dmorrison@dita4all.com> wrote: > > > I think a topicgroup gets its semantic of groupness from: > > > > 1. its name > > 2. its intent > > 3. the syntax of being parent to a group of child elements. > > I disagree. A topicgroup gets its semantic of groupness *from > not having a title*. > > In particular, item 3 is not distinguishing: any topicref > with child topicrefs is a group. Likewise, the intent is not > a distinguisher because you can only know the intent by > looking at the name (and then knowing that a specific name > has specific rules associated with it). > > That's the point I'm trying to make: currently any topicref > acts as a group (does not affect navigation) IFF it has > neither a navigation title nor a bound resource. > > So there are only two possible distinguishers for topicgroup: > > A. Lack of a navtitle (DITA 1.1) > B. The specific type mapgroup-d/topicgroup (implication of > new language in > 1.2 trying to explain away unavoidable allowance of navtitle > as descendant of topicgroup) > > I think (B) is the wrong thing to do but I will accept that > decision if it is the consensus otherwise. > > But let's not pretend that this is anything other than a > special case that privileges topicgroup in a way that no > other DITA-defined topicref is privileged and in a way that > no other non-DITA-defined topicref specialization can be > privileged except by specializing from topicgroup. > > Also, saying "processors are free to ignore the navtitle of a > topicgroup element" is making it a special case because it > means I cannot simply have a rule that says "if no navtitle > no effect on navigation". And it cannot be a "may" it must be > a "must", as in, "topicgroup's with navigation titles MUST > NOT contribute to navigation". > > Cheers, > > E. > > -- > 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]