Re: [dita] Key scopes and topicsetref

[Chris Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>]

My assumption is that any topicsetref resolution should occur *after* keyref resolution, and the topicsetref functions as a reference to the topicset as contextualized at its location. If that's the case, then whether either or both elements specify @keyscope doesn't matter, because the topicsetref's resolution occurs after all keyrefs have been resolved at both locations.

Chris




On 4/13/16, 9:08 PM, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of Eliot Kimber" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of ekimber@contrext.com> wrote:

>In the case of topicsetref and topicset, the 1.3 did not add any language
>to define what the behavior should be when either or both of the
>topicsetref and topicset specify a value for @keyscope.
>
>There are four possible cases:
>
>1. No key scopes. This is the 1.2 case and nothing is changed
>2. Key scope on topicsetref but not on topicset
>3. Key scope on topicset but not on topicsetref
>4. Key scope on both topicsetref and topicset
>
>In cases (2) and (3) I think the correct behavior can only be that there
>is one effective scope reflecting the scope name specified. While
>topicsetref is defined as a use-by-reference of the topicset I don't think
>just throwing away a keyscope specified on it would ever be
>appropriate--it's not a literal replacement but an application-managed
>relationship between the navigation point in the referencing map and the
>navigation structure defined by the topicset and that definitely argues
>for maintaining the keyscope.
>
>In case (4) there are four possible behaviors:
>
>1. The two scope names are merged as for map-to-map references, resulting
>in one key scope with two names.
>2. The topicsetref's scope becomes the parent scope of the topicset's key
>scope
>3. The topicsetref's key scope is ignored
>4. The topicset's key scope is ignored
>
>Option (1) is consistent with the explicit rules for map-to-map references
>and is my preference since it has the least surprise.
>
>Option (2) is logical but surprising and seems inconsistent with the
>semantic of topicsetref as a use-by-reference.
>
>Options (3) and (4) are conref-type behaviors and in a real conref would
>be controllable via the -use-conref-target keyword in the attribute value.
>That option is not available here so I think we can discard these options,
>especially since the writeup of topicsetref explicitly says it's not a
>content reference.
>
>I don't recall ever discussing the implications of key scopes for
>topicsetref. Did we?
>
>Based on my informal survey on DITA Users it doesn't appear that anyone
>much uses topicsetref.
>
>But probably good for us to decide what the right answer is or explicitly
>defer a decision to DITA 2.0.
>
>
>
>----
>Eliot Kimber, Owner
>Contrext, LLC
>http://contrext.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 
>