Abstract collisions

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

An astute co-worker noticed that the 1.1 design introduces two distinct
abstract elements. One is the peer of shortdesc in topics (class="-
topic/abstract "). The other is the abstract element in the front matter of
bookmap (class="- map/topicref bookmap/abstract "). These do not
technically conflict, because bookmap does not pick up the abstract element
from topics. However, this is a problem for a couple of reasons. Users will
be confused at two official abstract elements. It is potentially limiting
in the future, if we ever need to bring the topic's abstract into maps --
bookmap would no longer be valid.

So, I would like to suggest renaming the bookmap version to <bookabstract>.
If there are no objections to this, I'll go ahead and make it part of the
posted 1.1 beta, and we can make it official next week. Please speak up if
this causes any problems, or if you really strongly prefer that the bookmap
version be called <topicref-that-points-to-an-abstract-topic>.

Thanks-

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787