[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] processing-role: open items
Hi Jeff - everything you've said there sounds right to me.
My reasons for coming down on map->map cascading are:
*) It directly impacts @toc, @print, @linking, and @search. All of these
cascade, so it feels right to group processing-role with those here.
*) @format='something' indicates the target is not DITA and DITA processors
can't work with it; @scope=external indicates the target is unavailable and
again DITA processors can't work with it. However, @processing-role is used
when we do in fact want to work with the (usually DITA) target. So again,
to me, it feels right to grab the map, push the value thru, and keep going.
Anyway - that's how I defend the behavior to myself.
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
"Ogden, Jeff"
<jogden@ptc.com>
To
05/27/2009 03:18 "Michael Priestley"
PM <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
cc
"dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
RE: [dita] processing-role: open
items
Among other things Michael wrote:
I think processing-role should be able to cascade map-to-map, as
should print, toc, etc. Otherwise someone reusing a map can't change
its processing role without editing it.
I guess it depends on if we want @processing-role to behave like @toc,
@print, and similar attributes or like @scope and @format.
Allowing @processing-role to cascade from map to map the same way that
@print, @toc, and other similar attributes cascade would be OK. It means
that @processing-role would cascade within a map, and from a topicref in a
referencing map to the map element or the top element in a referenced
branch, and from there it would cascade within the referenced map or
branch. In the referenced map, it would override any @processing-role value
on the map element or parent topicref of a branch within the map. It would
not override any other explicit @processing-role values specified in the
referenced map or default values for @processing-role specified in a DTD or
XML Schema.
Since @processing-role has a default value of “resource-only” for the
keydef element, that value will never be overridden by cascading values
within the referenced map or from a referencing map. And if a keydef
element is used to reference a map, then @processing-role=”resource-only”
will always cascade from the referencing map to the referenced map or
branch unless @processing-role=”normal” is explicitly specified on the
keydef in the referencing map.
Have I got this right?
Do we want @processing-role to work like @toc, @print, and other similar
attributes or like @scope and @format?
I’m fine with it either way. Robert’s note called for the @toc, @print, …
behavior, and Michael wants map to map cascading. Also the @toc, @print, …
cascading behavior is probably better because @processing-role, @toc,
@print all exist on the map element unlike @scope and @format which do not.
So unless someone feels strongly about this in the other direction, we
should probably go with the @print, @toc, … behavior.
-Jeff
From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:28 AM
To: Ogden, Jeff
Cc: Helfinstine, David; dita; Grosso, Paul
Subject: RE: [dita] processing-role: open items
Hi Jeff,
>This seems fine, but we just want to clarify that @processing-role
cascades within a map, but does not cascade from map to map. Is that your
understanding?
I think processing-role should be able to cascade map-to-map, as should
print, toc, etc. Otherwise someone reusing a map can't change its
processing role without editing it.
Example: someone's defined a TOC map with key definitions. Someone else
wants to use the key definitions to resolve references, but doesn't want to
get the TOC, linking etc. They should be able to set
processing-role=resourceonly on the mapref to get this result.
This is also parallel to existing support for toc, print, etc. as noted by
Robert:
> > 1) Does the attribute cascade to nested topicrefs or through
> > references to
> > other maps? My thought is yes -- all of the related
> > attributes that authors
> > would view as processing attributes already do so (print, toc).
So I think map-to-map cascade for processing-role is not only useful, but
also consistent with other behaviors, and would be surprising if absent.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Ogden, Jeff"
<jogden@ptc.com>
To
05/19/2009 10:17 AM "dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
"Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>,
"Helfinstine, David" <dhelfinstine@ptc.com>
Subject
RE: [dita] processing-role: open items
Robert,
As Paul said in his note, what you proposed looks pretty good to us. Here
are a few comments, questions, or requests for clarification.
Just to confirm: @processing-role doesn't have a default value specified in
the DTD or schema for most elements, but when there is a DTD or schema
default, that is the value that applies unless a value is explicitly given
on the element. And when there is no explicit value, no default value in
the DTD or schema, and no value that cascades from ancestors, then the
processor supplied default for @processing-role is "normal".
OK, so far?
You proposed:
2) A related question was, would it cascade from <keydef> as well? I think
this one is clearer - we've established elsewhere that a defaulted
attribute cascades the same as an explicit attribute. That is, the
attributes are all normalized based on the priority defined elsewhere
(explicit attributes, defaulted attributes, controlled values file, etc).
Once they are normalized, any attribute that cascades does so regardless of
where it came from.
This seems fine, but we just want to clarify that @processing-role cascades
within a map, but does not cascade from map to map. Is that your
understanding?
Dave and I share the concern that Gershon expressed in his note. I wonder
if one way to handle this is to go forward with what you proposed, but add
something along these lines:
Processors MAY, but are not required to, produce a warning when the
effective value for @processing-role conflicts with or will override
explicit settings for @toc, @print, @search, or @linking on a particular
element.
-Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:51 AM
> To: Robert D Anderson; dita
> Subject: RE: [dita] processing-role: open items
>
> Robert,
>
> Thanks for this summary.
>
> I believe we'll have agreement on most of what you say here,
> but there are some subtleties that still need to be discussed,
> and unfortunately I have to miss today's TC telcon, so I'd
> ask that the TC make no final decision on this topic just yet.
>
> We (Jeff, Dave, and I) plan to send email in response to further
> the discussion as soon as we can.
>
> paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Monday, 2009 May 18 8:27
> > To: dita
> > Subject: [dita] processing-role: open items
> >
> >
> > Last week we agreed that processing-role will default to
> > "resource-only" on
> > the <keydef> element. From what I can tell in scanning the
> > email archives,
> > the open items are:
> >
> > 1) Does the attribute cascade to nested topicrefs or through
> > references to
> > other maps? My thought is yes -- all of the related
> > attributes that authors
> > would view as processing attributes already do so (print, toc).
> >
> > 2) A related question was, would it cascade from <keydef> as
> > well? I think
> > this one is clearer - we've established elsewhere that a defaulted
> > attribute cascades the same as an explicit attribute. That is, the
> > attributes are all normalized based on the priority defined elsewhere
> > (explicit attributes, defaulted attributes, controlled values
> > file, etc).
> > Once they are normalized, any attribute that cascades does so
> > regardless of
> > where it came from.
> >
> > 3) Exactly what attributes will processing-role interact with? When
> > processing-role=normal, there is no change from today. When
> > processing-role="resource-only", the topic will not be included in any
> > rendered form of the map; so, we've established that toc is
> > forced to "no",
> > print is forced to "no". Jeff also mentioned that linking and
> > search come
> > to mind; I'd agree that linking is forced to "none" for that
> > topic, and
> > search is forced to "no".
> >
> > 4) The processing-role attribute forces other attributes to
> > take values
> > such as toc="no". Does toc then become an explicit attribute
> > that cascades
> > to other values? My thought is no, mostly based on my guess
> > at what would
> > astonish people the least. I think users would be startled to
> > have child
> > removed from the toc in the following example:
> > <topicref href="parent" processing-role="resource-only">
> > <topicref href="child" processing-role="normal"/>
> > </topicref>
> >
> > 5) What does it mean to say processing-role="resource-only"
> > print="yes"? My
> > thought is that @print is ignored on that element, but that
> > both values
> > cascade, such that print may become useful further down. I
> > find the use
> > case for this somewhat hard to imagine, but in this contrived
> > example it
> > would ensure that the child is printed:
> > <topicref href="grandparent" print="no">
> > <topicref href="parent" processing-role="resource-only" print="yes">
> > <topicref href="child" processing-role="normal"/>
> > </topicref>
> > </topicref>
> >
> > Of course, the TC's answer to #4 could invalidate my
> > suggestion for #5.
> >
> > Thanks -
> >
> > Robert D Anderson
> > IBM Authoring Tools Development
> > Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> oups.php
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]