RE: [dita] comments on 12050 plus longdescref proposal

["Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2007 July 10 9:57
> To: Michael Priestley
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [dita] comments on 12050 plus longdescref proposal
> 
> Paul (probably working with Jeff?) - that was a great write 
> up. I only have
> a couple of general comments on top of what Michael said:
> 
> You've got the comment that "The topicref element has yet a different
> definition for href (even though most of its specializations 
> use either the
> standard definition or Alternative href definition #1)." I think the
> suggested updates for topicref/@href are appropriate - and 
> should also be
> applied to those specializations, except where called out 
> elsewhere in this
> document. For example, the TOC element and other lists have a 
> different
> definition that would not be impacted.

So the abbrevlist, bibliolist, etc. elements will remain as in 
the 12050 proposal, but the following specializations of topicref:
 amendments, appendix, bookabstract, chapter, colophon, dedication,
 draftintro, notices, part, preface 
would be (logically) "moved" from the "Elements using the "standard"
definitions of href, format, scope, and type" into a set that all
use the topicref's description of href.

I'll modify 12050 accordingly.

> 
> For authorinformation, the type attribute value should match 
> that specified
> on author (given that authorinformation is a specialization 
> of author).

I'll modify 12050 accordingly.

paul