[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Discussion of conref href= value syntax
In the section "Using conref to refer to an element within a topic" is this text: "The conref value follows the same conventions as HTML for what HTML calls a ″fragment identifier″—a required ″#″ separator separates an optional filename from the fully qualified id (in the form topicid/elementid). Note that the ID of the topic must be included in the reference before the ID of the element. To refer to target content in a different file, put the full URL of that topic before the # character." This is not technically correct in that the syntax of URLs is defined by the HTTP specification and not the HTML specification. That is, what HTML does is not a "convention" but what the URL specification *requires*. Using the terminology from RFC3986, I think this paragraph should say something like: The value of conref is a URI that includes (or consists entirely of) a fragment identifier consisting of the ID of the topic that contains the element that is the target of the content reference, a slash ("/"), and the ID of the target element. If the URI consists of only a fragement identifier, the target element must be in the same XML document as the reference. Likewise, the following section on conref within maps should read something like: Within a map, the conref attribute references an equivalent element in the same map or another map. [NOTE: I purposefully omitted the "will be copied" text.] The value of conref is a URI that includes (or consists entirely of) a fragment identifier consisting of the ID of the target element. If the URI consists of only a fragement identifier, the target element must be in the same XML document as the reference. If the URI addresses a different resource that resource must be a DITA map document. Note that as far as I can tell RFC3986 does not define a term that means "the part of the URI that is not the fragement identifier or query". If there is such a term the above might be clear by saying "a URI that consists of an (optional) thingy plus a fragment identifier...". Also, I think that the following section "Using conref to refer to a map" could be combined with the preceding section to avoid having to repeat what was just said for conrefs within map. I haven't taken the time to find all the places that specs talk about addressing syntax, but anywhere that the value is a URI the same sort of language should be used. It would probably be useful to have a separate general statement about addressing and what forms of URI processors are expected to support. In particular, I would think that it's a requirement that all DITA processors support the HTTP schemes but are not required to support any other schemes for DITA-to-DITA references. Cheers, E. -- W. Eliot Kimber Professional Services Innodata Isogen 8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402 Austin, TX 78759 (214) 954-5198 ekimber@innodata-isogen.com www.innodata-isogen.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]