OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and references to them



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2009 August 18 17:00
> To: Grosso, Paul
> Cc: dita
> Subject: RE: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and references to them
> 
> Possibly - but to get the inside-section link to work, additional work
> would still be required. Unless your topic IDs are all identical --
you'll
> have this section:
>      <section id="thing">
>        <title>This is a silly section</title>
>        <note id="test">note that IDs can be a problem</note>
>        <p>Look at that note: <xref href="#other/test"/>
>      </section>
> 
> If that is pulled unchanged into another topic with no modification,
you
> will end up with a reference to "#other/test" ... meaning you will
most
> likely have a broken link, because the new topic doesn't have
id="other".

Right, but that's a problem we already know we need to fix
(and we know how to fix it); see DITA 1.3 proposal 13001 at
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_1.3_Proposals

> 
> If the referencing topic, as in the sample below, has id="something",
and
> the target topic has id="other", then for the link to remain valid as
a
> link, you'll have to do one of these:
> 1) Change the value to #other/test -- but if "test" is now duplicated,
you
> have the problem we've been trying to resolve.
> 2) Change the value to point to the original target -
> othertopic.dita#other/test - but this takes you out of the file, which
I'd
> guess is never the desired or expected result
> 3) Change the note to "test-gen1" and change the reference to
> "#something/test-gen1" - this is what my code does now, because (to
me) it
> seemed closest to the author's and reader's intent. That is, within
that
> block, the link stays valid and it stays local to that block.

Once we've implemented proposal 13001, you won't have to do anything
if the referencing topic doesn't have id="test" anywhere--and having
to do nothing to make this work is as it should be.  

If the referencing topic does have id="test", that's the problem 
we're discussing where Rob suggests having some kind of "fixup" 
of the ids in the referencing document instead of in the referenced
document.  Not that that's necessarily the best solution either.

Which is why it isn't clear we should be defining a particular solution
for DITA 1.2.  Whether Michael's "shoulds" are optional enough
to be acceptable is open for question.  RFC 2119 says SHOULD means
"that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to 
ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood 
and carefully weighed before choosing a different course."  I'm not
sure we, ourselves, understand the full implications yet.

> 
> My view on that is - if one of my other topics links to "test" within
topic
> "something", then I have created that link because I want to go to the
> element I've defined in there with id="test". Likewise, if somebody
else
> has linked to "test" within my topic, then they're linking to the
element
> that actually exists there with id="test". I also want that link to be
> reliable, regardless of what other IDs people add within section I'm
> reusing.
> 
> If we go the other way, we also run in to the equivalent problem over
in
> topic "other". What happens when we have this, and the conref pulls in
a
> phrase with id="test":
>      <section id="thing">
>        <title>This is a silly section</title>
>        <note id="test">note that IDs can be a problem</note>
>        <p>Look at that note: <xref href="#other/test"/>
>        <p conref="a.dita#nother/thing"/>
>      </section>
> 
> If we have to modify the original, then the local xref is broken
because it
> now goes to a phrase instead of the note.

Right, id fixup--regardless of where you do it--always implies
fixing up both ids and idrefs.  This is not an easy issue--which
is why I don't think we should be defining specific processing
for DITA 1.2.  This will take a lot more thought; we should tackle 
this much more deliberately in DITA 1.3.

paul

> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Robert D Anderson
> IBM Authoring Tools Development
> Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> 
> 
> 
>              "Grosso, Paul"
>              <pgrosso@ptc.com>
>
To
>              08/18/2009 05:34          "dita"
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
>              PM
cc
> 
>
Subject
>                                        RE: [dita] Issue: Map element
IDs
>                                        and references to them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Rob's point (I believe) is what if the silly section had
> an xref to the note with the id="test"?  After conreffing it
> into your topic, that xref will now link to something completely
> different than the author of the silly section intended.
> 
> paul
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2009 August 18 16:30
> > To: Rob Frankland
> > Cc: dita
> > Subject: Re: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and references to them
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > More specifically, the issue is this one - say I have this topic:
> > <topic id="something">
> >   <title>Sample topic</title>
> >   <body>
> >     <p id="test">This is a sample</p>
> >     <section conref="othertopic.dita#other/thing"/>
> >   </body>
> > </topic>
> >
> > Now - what happens when the referenced section brings in an element
> that
> > has id="test"? If the owner of that other topic randomly adds
> id="test" to
> > a note within that section, I should not have to change the ID on my
> > paragraph in order to make my conref valid - I should be able to
reuse
> > without fear of breaking my own topic.
> >
> > So, the second bullet in Michael's note is specifically talking
about
> how
> > the processors work when that id="test" value gets pulled into the
> section
> > in this topic. The suggestion is that, if "test" already exists in
> this
> > topic, the ID somehow be mangled so that the original can still
work.
> So,
> > the result after conref would be something like:
> > <topic id="something">
> >   <title>Sample topic</title>
> >   <body>
> >     <p id="test">This is a sample</p>
> >     <section>
> >       <title>This is a silly section</title>
> >       <note id="test-gen1">note that IDs can be a problem</note>
> >     </section>
> >   </body>
> > </topic>
> >
> > Anybody already linking or conref'ing to the id "test" within this
> topic
> > will still be safe, and still get the item they expected.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
> >
> > Robert D Anderson
> > IBM Authoring Tools Development
> > Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> >
> >
> >
> >              Rob Frankland
> >              <robf@sockmonkeyc
> >              onsult.com>
> To
> >                                        Michael Priestley
> >              08/18/2009 05:19          <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
> >              PM
> cc
> >                                        dita
> <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> Subject
> >                                        Re: [dita] Issue: Map element
> IDs
> >                                        and references to them
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In the second bullet shouldn't it be the local ID that gets changed.
> If the
> > ID of the one being brought is changed, will cause problems in the
> original
> > use of the ID. Local author has the much safe ability to change
value
> of
> > the ID.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --
> > Rob Frankland
> > Sock Monkey Consulting, LLC
> > 12408 Kallgren RD NE
> > Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
> > Landline: 206-780-8850
> > Cell: 206-963-5541
> >
> >
> > Michael Priestley wrote:
> >
> >       OK, Robert talked some sense into me off-line.
> >
> >       I now get Eliot's point during the call today that a link into
> the
> >       substructures of a conref'd section (for example) is not
> reliable, if
> >       only because it requires that link resolution be done as a
> second
> >       pass, after conref resolution, where many processes may be
> resolving
> >       both conrefs and links at the same time as part of a
> >       resolve-references pass.
> >
> >       I also get Jeff's point about the closest target being
> preferable to
> >       the first target: for example, if I have an xref to a list
item,
> both
> >       in the same document, then I'd want it to continue working
even
> after
> >       I conref in something between them that introduces a duplicate
> id.
> >       So in this case, same document=closer.
> >
> >       That said, I still want our behaviors to be predictable, ie
the
> same
> >       across processors. But I don't want to make a
> backwards-incompatible
> >       change either, if I can avoid it.
> >
> >       So how about:
> >
> >       - map documents, and individual topics, SHOULD NOT contain
> duplicate
> >       ids on their elements (note should not, rather than must not)
> >       - conrefs that bring in an element with an id that already
> exists in
> >       the conreffing context SHOULD change the id of the element
being
> >       brought in, to avoid creating a collision (again note should
not
> >       rather than must not)
> >
> >       That should give a rule similar to what Jeff described in the
> call
> >       today, and makes it recommended but not required.
> >
> >       Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
> >       Lead IBM DITA Architect
> >       mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
> >       http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
> >
> >
> >  Eliot Kimber
> >  <ekimber@reallysi.com>
> >
> >
> To
> >  07/06/2009 09:27 AM                          dita
> >
> <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> cc
> >
> >
> Subject
> >                                               [dita] Issue: Map
> element
> >                                               IDs and references to
> them
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >       There appears to be serious inconsistency between what at
least
> I
> >       understand
> >       our decisions about addressing elements within maps to be and
> what
> >       the arch
> >       spec says. In addition, the arch spec as currently drafted is
> >       inconsistent
> >       on this matter.
> >
> >       In particular, we have established that the fragment
identifier
> for
> >       elements
> >       within maps is simply the @id attribute value, e.g.
> "#sometopicref".
> >
> >       However, the draft arch spec says this under "Map IDs and
> element IDs
> >       within
> >       a map":
> >
> >       "The id attributes for other elements in map are not of type
ID
> and
> >       are not
> >       required to be unique."
> >
> >       If this statement is true then a fragment identifier
consisting
> of
> >       just the
> >       element ID is not sufficient to enable reliable addressing of
> >       elements
> >       within maps.
> >
> >       So something has to give. I see the following possible
> solutions:
> >
> >       A. Define a rule for resolving ambiguous references, e.g.
"first
> >       occurrence
> >       in document order". This probably reflects current behavior of
> most
> >       implementations.
> >
> >       B. Require element IDs to be unique within map documents. Note
> that
> >       because
> >       of shared elements between topics and maps, it's not possible
to
> >       declare the
> >       ID attribute for most elements to be of type ID, so this
> requirement
> >       has to
> >       be validated by processors.
> >
> >       C. Make topicref IDs XML IDs and scope all other element IDs
to
> the
> >       nearest
> >       ancestor with a specified @id attribute (or the map element,
> >       whichever is
> >       nearer). Allow two-part fragment identifiers. Single-part
> fragment
> >       identifiers address the first occurrence in document order.
> >
> >       Option (A) is the simplest to implement but the least
complete.
> >       Option C is
> >       the most complete but changes current processing and address
> >       resolution
> >       behavior.
> >
> >       As for use cases, references to topicrefs is the primary use
> case for
> >       pointing to elements within maps, but certainly the current
spec
> >       doesn't
> >       disallow other references and there could be reasons to, e.g.,
> >       data-about,
> >       conref from "resource" maps, etc.
> >
> >       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>
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >       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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]