Re: [dita] @keyscope on <relcolspec>

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

I agree: the potential side effects are too great.

Cheers,

E.
—————
Eliot Kimber, Owner
Contrext, LLC
http://contrext.com




On 4/16/15, 3:27 PM, "Chris Nitchie" <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> wrote:

>I certainly never intended to have @keyscope on relcolspec. This is just
>a side-effect of the reuse of the parameter entity defining those
>attributes. I
>strongly support its removal from relcolspec.
>
>
>Chris
>Chris Nitchie
>(734) 330-2978
>chris.nitchie@oberontech.com
>www.oberontech.com
> <http://www.oberontech.com/>
>Follow us:
> <https://www.facebook.com/oberontech>
> <https://twitter.com/oberontech>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/oberon-technologies>
> 
> See us at the DITA
> North America <http://www.cm-strategies.com/2015/index.htm> 2015
>conference, April 20-22 in Chicago, Il.  Learn how our expert services
>and innovative solutions can meet your content and publishing needs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: Robert D Anderson
>Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:22 PM
>To: DITA TC
>Subject: [dita] @keyscope on <relcolspec>
>
>
>
>While doing an exhaustive review of our new keyscope material with Kris,
>I realized that the keyscope attribute is available on <relcolspec> (it's
>part of the general group of topicref attributes that gets reused on
>relcolspec).
>
>This came up because the current definition of what goes in a key scope
>covers child elements in the map, along with stuff referenced by those
>elements. Logically, I think a key scope on a relcolspec would have to
>cover all of the reltable cells and topicrefs
> from that single column of the reltable - but this isn't called out
>anywhere.
>
>That said ... I have to wonder if we'd be better off removing @keyscope
>from this element? Doing so would somewhat complicate the grammar files
>(not sure how much). But, it would also simplify the definition of key
>scopes (because we would not have to add language
> for this case). It would also mean implementations do not have to worry
>about this case, which I'm thinking is extremely unlikely. If I try, I
>can come up with cases where somebody could conceivably try this - but I
>can't come up with a case where the pain
> of managing that sort of markup would be worth it.
>
>So, I think the options are - update the spec to explicitly cover this
>edge case (@keyscope on relcolspec means XYZ), or my preferred option,
>remove @keyscope from relcolspec.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Robert D Anderson
>IBM Authoring Tools Development
>Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (http://www.dita-ot.org/)
>
>
>