RE: [dita] ITEM: Meaningful Values for type= on xref and topicref

["Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>]

I think this is a much bigger deal than a "bug fix".  It is an
incompatible change from DITA 1.0 and 1.1. Those versions of the spec.
told people to use "fig", "fn" and similar element name values.  I guess
this isn't as bad as it might be because you use the word "SHOULD"
rather than the word "MUST" or "REQUIRED".  Still it will make old
documents incorrect with respect to the DITA 1.2 spec. and it will
require processors that were working OK with DITA 1.0 and DITA 1.1 to be
changed.  So I don't think this is a good idea.

And, is having different styles @type values for topic references and
sub-topic references a good thing?  Or will users find that confusing?

But if we are going to make this change or move in this direction,
shouldn't we at least document both the old and new values and say that
processors SHOULD implement both to allow a transition to the new style?
And what is the correct syntax to get a footnote with the new scheme?
Other parts of the spec. still call for the use of type="fn", don't
they?

   -Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:15 AM
> To: Ogden, Jeff; dita
> Subject: Re: [dita] ITEM: Meaningful Values for type= on xref and
> topicref
> 
> On 6/30/09 10:08 AM, "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com> wrote:
> 
> > Is this a good idea?  It seem like a big change from the type values
> > that were called for in DITA 1.0 and 1.1 (topic, concept, fig,
> fn, ...).
> > Is this in support of a DITA 1.2 proposal?  Was it something that
the
> > DITA TC talked about and agreed to?  Please point me at an e-mail
> > discussion or other document if I missed something.
> 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200905/msg00033.html
> 
> 
> This is essentially a bug fix: DITA has always been broken in this
> regard in
> that xrefs to specialized types where the name is not qualified are
> potentially ambiguous as there's no requirement that a given non-topic
> element name be globally unique across all possible vocabulary
modules.
> 
> For example, if you xref to another topic and say type "foo", it's
> ambiguous
> whether you mean "my-domain-d/foo" or "your-domain-d/foo".
> 
> 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>