[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] ITEM: Cross-references to Topicheads and ImplicitTitle-only Topics
On 5/5/09 3:48 PM, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote: > After review, Jeff and I are generally okay with this, > but if we're planning to approve something at next week's > telcon, we need to be sure we know what we're approving. > In most cases, Eliot's email does do that, but not in all. > > [Note, despite the subject--which suffers from legacy--this > proposal is just about cross-references to topicheads. It > does not mention/address implicit title-only topics.] > > More detailed "editorial" comments below (nothing technical). Sorry for the confusion--my haste to get something to the TC in advance of today's meeting. >> 4. Under "data": >> >> - href= is allowed but the current spec doesn't say what it >> means to specify >> href= on data. Data-about mentions that href= on data >> specifies the object >> of the data. So clearly we need to say something to that >> effect under data. > > Since no specific change has been suggested, I'm assuming this > is just a comment in passing. Unless in the future some specific > change is suggested, this is a no-op, and I'll assume any vote > next week will not include anything on this. I think I need to propose specific language for data: 4. Add new third paragraph: Use the href attribute to point to the effective value of the <data> element (the object of the <data>). When the direct target of the href attribute is a topicref element, processors may choose to treat either the topicref or its ultimate target as the object of the <data> element. [WEK: I think I've understood the intent of href= on <data> correctly in this proposal. If not, then we need to agree as a TC what the intent is.] >> 5. data-about >> >> I think the text under href, proposed above, is sufficient >> since it's not a >> navigation relationship but an annotation relationship. > > Another no-op comment. Yes. Item 5 is not a proposal. >> 7. lq >> >> Same as data-about--let href text serve, since use of href= on lq is >> effectively deprecated by the existence of longquoteref > > Another no-op comment. Correct--also not a proposal. > I'm assuming there is no significance to #10 being missing. Correct, no significance. > We're okay with the first #12. > > I'm assuming there is no significance to having two #12's. Cut and paste error. Cheers, Eliot ---- Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc. email: ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]