OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [dita] Spec Issue: Addressing Nested Topics


Hi, Paul:

The first bullet in the document you referenced lays out the rules for addressing topics:


So, in DITA 1.0, topics cannot be addressed relative to another topic.

In passing, use, "topic content" should be defined and probably isn't quite the right term. What we need is a term that indicates everything contained by a topic except nested topics.

Because topicgroups and topicheads specialize topicref, the id definition for topicref (unique within document) applies to topicgroup and topichead as well:

As for why a content fragment has to be addressed within a topic, my interpretation is that the rule ensures that processing and management always works with a consistent definition of a content object, even when sharing pieces of such objects. (Rather like using a class as the unit of definition and reuse in an object-oriented programming language instead of allowing reuse of functions outside of any class.)


Hoping that's useful,


Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com



Inactive hide details for "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>"Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>


          "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>

          10/06/2005 04:40 AM


To

<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

cc


Subject

[dita] "Fragments of DITA content"

http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.0/archspec/conref.html

“The target of a conref must be in a valid DITA topic or DITA map. Fragments of DITA content do not contain enough information on their own to allow the conref processor to determine the validity of a reference to them.”

What is the basis for this statement? Could some describe how the first of these documents contains more conref-processor-relevant information than the second?

1.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE topic PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DITA Composite//EN" "ditabase.dtd">
<!-- Created with XMetaL 4.6 (http://www.xmetal.com) -->
<topic id="topic_5"><title>Title</title>
<body>
<p id="reusable">This is a reuable paragraph.</p></body></topic>


2.
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE p PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DITA Composite//EN" "ditabase.dtd">
<!-- Created with XMetaL 4.6 (http://www.xmetal.com) -->
<p id="reusable">This is a reuable paragraph.</p>

Perhaps the spec could be clearer if it were explicit about what information the latter lacks.


As a best practice I actually prefer the former. The title element makes it easier to find the fragment. But a rationale based upon information management best practice is different than one based upon the needs of a conref processor.

Paul Prescod



Inactive hide details for "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>"Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>


          "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>

          10/06/2005 04:32 AM


To

<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

cc


Subject

[dita] Spec Issue: Addressing Nested Topics

The DITA specification defines an addressing scheme for topics and another for “topic content”.[1] Topic content is not defined. Presumably it just means “sub-elements of topics”. Topics can be sub-elements of other topics. In this case, is either addressing scheme appropriate?

http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.0/archspec/id.html

While I am asking questions about this section: it seems not to deal with ID attributes on topicheads and topicgroups. There may be other unaddressed elements.

Paul Prescod

GIF image

GIF image



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]