Re: [dita] ITEM: Cross-references to Topicheads and ImplicitTitle-only Topics

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 4/7/09 9:41 AM, "Michael Priestley" <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

> Eliot wrote:
>> If we want to remain silent on what it means to xref to a topicref, fine,
>> the 1.2 spec will be no more ambiguous or underspecified than the 1.1
> spec
>> is. The use or non-use of keyref doesn't change that.
> 
> OK, the good news is that means we can agree that DITA 1.2 scope stays the
> same.
> 
> I suggest we take an item for DITA 1.3 to formalize expected behaviors for
> hrefs to various target types. This came up as a requirement on
> dita.xml.org a while ago as well.

You're still not getting my point: it's not about href= vs. keyref=. It's
about xref to topicrefs, *by any means*. Adding keyref= doesn't remove any
ambiguity--the ambiguity was already there.

What keyref does, *as currently explained*, is add *confusion* about the
distinction between addressing and linking.

If the 1.2 spec doesn't make the distinction clear then *IT IS BROKEN* and
needs to be fixed. Fixing that doesn't absolutely require that we then
removing the ambiguity of xrefs to topicrefs. But it will certainly make the
ambiguity more obvious, since people will not have a *manageable* way to
create xrefs to topics *with the expectation* that xrefs to topicrefs
function as indirectors.

It is not acceptable to have href= and keyref= mean different things.

Cheers,

E.

----
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>