Re: [dita] RE: Overall fixes for bookmap for 2.0

dita message

Subject: Re: [dita] RE: Overall fixes for bookmap for 2.0

From: Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@jeppesen.com>

To: Éric Sirois <eric.sirois@ixiasoft.com>, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:05:45 +0000

Well, the most annoying thing IMO is that even if the keys resolve, they won’t show up in output unless you specifically set print=“yes”. I’ve run into this a ton with term/abbreviated-form.

—Scott

From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Éric Sirois <eric.sirois@ixiasoft.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 10:03 AM
To: Éric Sirois <eric.sirois@ixiasoft.com>, "dita@lists.oasis-open.org" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita] RE: Overall fixes for bookmap for 2.0

Specifically looking to allow Keydefs in a more natural position in the map versus the first instance were topicref is allowed in the current content model. Are there other things that we have ignored about bookmaps in DITA 1.3?

Éric Sirois

DITA Toolsmith

IXIASOFT

825 Querbes, Suite 200, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H2V 3X1

tel + 1 514 279-4942 / toll free + 1 877 279-4942

mobile + 1 647 462-3620

eric.sirois@ixiasoft.com/www.ixiasoft.com

From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Éric Sirois
Sent: February 21, 2017 11:33 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] Overall fixes for bookmap for 2.0

Hi,

We have a number of clients that have hit some limitations for keyref and ditavalref in bookmaps. I would like to work on a proposal that would address those limitations in DITA 2.0. Would it be possible to create a project entry in the DITA 2.0 project?