[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] referencing a bookmap from a map
On 6/9/09 5:00 PM, "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com> wrote: > There are two classes of users here. Authors and implementers. > > > > Different authors will feel differently about being allowed or > prohibited from shooting themselves in the foot. And they may feel > differently still before and after shooting themselves in the foot. > > > > Implementers (like me) are looking for some guidance. Should we keep > authors from shooting themselves in the foot, warn them, but let them > shoot themselves in the foot if they wish, or just let them shoot > themselves in the foot without any warning. And if we let them shoot > themselves in the foot, should different implementations always shoot > the same foot or can some implementations shoot the left foot while > others shoot the right, while still others shoot the head? As an > implementer, what I want to avoid is having someone say that after we > shot them in the right foot that we should have shot them in the left > foot because that is what some other implementation does or what the > DITA specification calls for. > > > > To get back to DITA maps, it would seem that we have some choices, but > I'm losing track of who is pushing for what: > > > > 1) Make map to bookmap illegal, Bruce's original approach, now > withdrawn. > > 2) Allow map to bookmap, where the bookmap context is not > overridden by the map, my proposal from earlier today, still on the > table. > > 3) Michael's proposal that I'm not sure I understand, but which > would have map references behave more like conref and so presumably more > specialized topicrefs would be generalized to less specialized > topicrefs, or pretty much the opposite of approach #2 (Michael, correct > me if I got your proposal wrong). > > 4) Eliot's proposal, which I'm not sure I understand, but which > seems to be "anything goes" leaving it up to the implementers (Eliot, > correct me if I got your proposal wrong). . Eliot would proposal #2 > allow you to do what you want to do? I'm saying #2, without bothering to say anything about "bookmap context" because that's a processor-specific implementation detail. Either processors are *obligated* to treat more-specialized topicrefs as generalized to the level of the referencing topicref (Michael's proposal) or they aren't. If they aren't, then how they remember what the unspecialized type of a given topicref is is an implementation detail. I'm also suggesting that any implementor, e.g., Arbortext, is free to say, for that implementation, whether a particular case is or isn't meaningful, so if Editor said "maprefs from <map> to <bookmap> aren't sensical *to us*" I would be fine with that. But if it instead "this is the sense it does make to us" I would be fine with that too (from a conformance standpoint). Cheers, E. ---- 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]