[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] related-links content model
Hi, This has become a problem for a couple of groups working on different specializations. One user needs the following links: * one optional link to setup information for the topic * one optional link to a zip that contains materials related to the topic * one optional link to in-depth information about this topic * one optional link to a PDF version of the topic * any number of links to bio topics about the authors * any number of generic links Ideally, the content model would look something like this: (setupLink?, downloadMaterials?, inDepthInfo?, pdfVersion?, authorInfo*, link*) As explained previously, this is not allowed, because nothing is required. The only way to get around this without making one required is to specialize a linkpool, and make that required - something like this: <newLinks><newLinkPool> ...optional links, in order... </newLinkPool></newLinks> Instead of having the overhead of 2 link groups, this user chose not to enforce an order, and allow any number of links: (setupLink | downloadMaterials | inDepthInfo | pdfVersion | authorInfo | link)+ This does not really meet her needs, because most of the links should be limited to one instance. The other user wants to have a related links element to include contact/support information. He set up the model like this: (email*, emailcc*, url*) This one is easier to fix, just by removing the order requirement, but it does mean the user does not get exactly what he wants. Aside from the actual use cases - I can vouch for the fact that it is difficult to explain to users why their new templates must have either one required link, or a seemingly useless element... Thanks, Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit "JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@com tech-serv.com> To Robert D 09/29/2005 02:32 Anderson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS, PM <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> cc Subject RE: [dita] related-links content model Hi, Can you provide a use case of the related link problem? Why would I be using a set of links like this? What is a description of a practical situation? JoAnn JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD President Comtech Services, Inc. 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400 Denver CO 80215 303-232-7586 joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 4:39 PM To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [dita] related-links content model Hello all, Several groups in IBM are working on specializations and have encountered the same problem with the related-links content model. Currently, the model is (link | linkpool | linklist)+ There must be at least one child. This is a problem when your specialization should have many optional links, but none can be required - something like this: <!ELEMENT favoriteAnimals (favoriteCat?, favoriteBird?, favoriteDog?, favoriteLlama?, otherAnimalLink*)> Technically, this is an invalid specialization of related-links, because none of the links are required - but the users do not want to require any given link from that group. The specialization thus has a looser model than the base, which requires at least one child. The only real way to get around this is to require a specialized linkpool, which can then contain all of the optional links. Are there any problems with changing the plus to an asterisk on the related-links content model? Doing so would greatly simplify the specialization of the related-links element. A similar argument can be made for changing the model of lists - Don pointed out to me that the "enote" demo specialization in the DITA Open Toolkit had this problem, and was forced to require one specialized list item inside the <noteheader> element. However, given that my users have not hit this one yet, and some implementations may rely on that required element for processing or editing, I'm more focused on the link issue. Any thoughts? Would anybody object to treating these as a bug fixes for 1.1, or as an additional very-simple feature for 1.1? If there are problems with changing the model of lists, then what about just updating the related-links model? Thanks, Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]