[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Map structure and possible new attribute for conref pushand anchorref
On 2/3/09 1:41 PM, "Su-Laine Yeo" <su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com> wrote: > Proposed name: > "localdisplay". In previous discussions I've suggested a name of > "appear" or "display" but "localdisplay" is now my favourite (I think > Gershon suggested it). I'm not entirely happy with the name "localdisplay". My main objection is to the qualification "local" since the meaning of "local" is a bit ambiguous, although I understand the intended meaning in this context. In addition, this isn't really about display but about the role the information plays in the process of determining the final effective structure of the processed result. And while "display" is probably clear it's a little too tied to specific processing intent for my taste. I'm wondering if we don't need to first codify a concept that is inherent in DITA processing but never really made explicit, namely the distinction between content that is "primary" and content that is "secondary", where primary content determines the structure and content of the final effective result of processing or access and secondary content supplies dependencies used by the primary content. For processing or access, primary content is always directly accessible (is presented directly, has appropriate navigation structures provided for it, is findable by search, etc.) and secondary content is never directly accessible (is never presented directly, has no navigation structurs pointing to it, cannot be found directly by search but only in the context in which it is used, etc.) but is only presented indirectly through the use of conref or links (e.g., as created by relationship tables). By default, all topics referenced explicitly in a map are primary and all topics not referenced in a map (but linked from topics, at least by conref links, if not all types of link) are secondary. Given that distinction, then the attribute could be meaningfully named "primary-secondary-content" with a default value of "primary" and "secondary" meaning "these topics do not directly contribute to the effective result of processing the map". Note that I explicitly didn't call this attribute "content-type" simply because the term "content-type" already means "MIME type" or "data type" to most people. This approach has the advantage that it is completely generic with respect to the type of processing to be applied or the nature of the processing result, at the cost of being a bit more abstract. I think it better reflects the true nature of the distinction that needs to be made. But I think that making explicit the fact that there are these two classes of content would make this whole discussion clearer to both users and implementors, even if we go with Su-Laine's original proposed name and values. Cheers, Eliot ---- Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc. email: ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]