Re: [dita] More specific attribute inconsistency with hasRelated

[Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>]

And of course, when I said "ordered" in my earlier note, I actually meant the enumerated value "sequence". But you all knew that...

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)

Robert D Anderson---02/04/2014 20:41:34---According to our spec topic, hasRelated takes the attribute @collection-type:

From: Robert D Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS
To: dita <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>,
Date: 02/04/2014 20:41
Subject: [dita] More specific attribute inconsistency with hasRelated
Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

According to our spec topic, hasRelated takes the attribute @collection-type:
docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/os/spec/langref/hasRelated.html

None of the other has* elements use this - the attribute lists for hasInstance, hasRelated, and all the others are identical apart from this one attribute.

I assume this was because hasRelated is a more generic relationship than the others, so @collection-type is used to give a bit more info. The odd part is that according to the spec, the attribute is the same as on all other topicref elements. In both the DTD and XSD implementation, the value "ordered" is removed, and there is a default value of "choice".

So question #1 is, should the DTD/XSD/RNG be updated to add a value of "ordered" so that it is consistent with the others, or is there really an intent to remove this option?

Question #2 is, should we update the spec to show a default value of "choice", or should we update the doctypes to remove the default, and be even more consistent with other elements?

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://dita-ot.sourceforge.net/)