dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and references to them
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 09:53:03 -0400
Fair enough. 1.3 it is.
I'll add that in the 2b case, you'd
also want to know whether the reference should point to the original, or
to the original as reused. Just because something's conref'd in place A
doesn't mean it's not also directly included in place B. My assumption
was that the format of the reference (which includes the id of the containing
topic) would remove all ambiguity, but that brings up questions of processing
order, and leaves unsolved the edge case of conrefs that pull in whole
branches of topics.
So: we are accepting that a processor
may solve this in any way they wish for 1.2, and we recommend no particular
course of action (though I personally would freak out if they solved it
by changing the local id).
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Grosso, Paul"
<pgrosso@ptc.com>
08/19/2009 09:40 AM
|
To
| "dita" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and
references to them |
|
I don't know how common
certain things are with conrefs at this point. But assuming dita's
conrefs are generally supposed to replace the need for XML's parsed entity
references, I've certainly seen referenced entities that contain id/idref
pairs.
You're missing a 2b case
below: that id in the content being conreffed in is referenced from
a different topic that you are also pulling into your map from somewhere
else. Once you do fixup on that pulled in id, the from-other-topic
reference to it is broken.
So, to answer your question,
we don't stop worrying, but we put off trying to come up with any solution
until post-DITA 1.2. It's too complex an issue to try to solve in
a big hurry (and 1.2 is already late enough that we shouldn't take the
time that would be necessary to fix it now).
paul
From: Michael Priestley [mailto:mpriestl@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2009 August 18 17:51
To: Rob Frankland
Cc: dita; Grosso, Paul
Subject: Re: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and references to them
Just to check - how common is it for a conref'd element to contain internal
elements that reference each other? It seems like we're dealing with an
edge case of an edge case.
I'm guessing it could happen - maybe in a large table with multiple footnote
definitions, and the whole table gets conref'd - but I wouldn't think
it was common.
Also, Rob just to clarify - any fix would be applied at processing time,
and not to the original source. We're not talking about touching or editing
the source.
This is the way I'm thinking of it:
1- main case: you conref in something, it doesn't contain elements with
ids, or the ids are unique in the new context - no problem
2- exception: the thing you conref'd in contains an id that's already in
use by the conreffing topic or map - adjust the id of the thing being pulled
in, since we know it's not being referenced, and the other (local) id might
be - eg by another topic or map
3- extra exception: the thing you conref'd in contains both an id, and
a reference to the id - so adjust them both (you'd need to adjust the reference
anyway) - again, preserving the id of the local element since it could
be referenced by some other topic we're not aware of.
As Paul points out, there's a proposal for 1.3 that would take care of
case 3. Does that mean we stop worrying about case 2? The proposal for
1.3 doesn't address case 2.
I'll back off the SHOULD if that makes people uncomfortable - but let's
at least put a MAY in. Some kind of hint that the norm is changing the
id of the thing being pulled in, rather than the local id it conflicts
with (assuming I can convince Rob that that's preferable).
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Rob Frankland <robf@sockmonkeyconsult.com>
08/18/2009 06:33 PM
|
To
| "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
|
cc
| dita <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| Re: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and references
to them |
|
Paul got my point exactly. This is really difficult, you cannot assure
that an ID is unique and any fix will almost assuredly make a bad reference
now or in the future. The crux of the matter is that currently DITA encourages
reuse of this type without any way to check validity before processing
- correct?
Rob
Grosso, Paul wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2009 August 18 17:00
To: Grosso, Paul
Cc: dita
Subject: RE: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and references to them
Possibly - but to get the inside-section link to work, additional work
would still be required. Unless your topic IDs are all identical --
you'll
have this section:
<section id="thing">
<title>This is a silly section</title>
<note id="test">note that IDs can
be a problem</note>
<p>Look at that note: <xref href=""#other/test"/>
</section>
If that is pulled unchanged into another topic with no modification,
you
will end up with a reference to "#other/test" ... meaning you
will
most
likely have a broken link, because the new topic doesn't have
id="other".
Right, but that's a problem we already know we need to fix
(and we know how to fix it); see DITA 1.3 proposal 13001 at
http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/DITA_1.3_Proposals
If the referencing topic, as in the sample below, has id="something",
and
the target topic has id="other", then for the link to remain
valid as
a
link, you'll have to do one of these:
1) Change the value to #other/test -- but if "test" is now duplicated,
you
have the problem we've been trying to resolve.
2) Change the value to point to the original target -
othertopic.dita#other/test - but this takes you out of the file, which
I'd
guess is never the desired or expected result
3) Change the note to "test-gen1" and change the reference to
"#something/test-gen1" - this is what my code does now, because
(to
me) it
seemed closest to the author's and reader's intent. That is, within
that
block, the link stays valid and it stays local to that block.
Once we've implemented proposal 13001, you won't have to do anything
if the referencing topic doesn't have id="test" anywhere--and
having
to do nothing to make this work is as it should be.
If the referencing topic does have id="test", that's the problem
we're discussing where Rob suggests having some kind of "fixup"
of the ids in the referencing document instead of in the referenced
document. Not that that's necessarily the best solution either.
Which is why it isn't clear we should be defining a particular solution
for DITA 1.2. Whether Michael's "shoulds" are optional
enough
to be acceptable is open for question. RFC 2119 says SHOULD means
"that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to
ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood
and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." I'm
not
sure we, ourselves, understand the full implications yet.
My view on that is - if one of my other topics links to "test"
within
topic
"something", then I have created that link because I want to
go to the
element I've defined in there with id="test". Likewise, if somebody
else
has linked to "test" within my topic, then they're linking to
the
element
that actually exists there with id="test". I also want that link
to be
reliable, regardless of what other IDs people add within section I'm
reusing.
If we go the other way, we also run in to the equivalent problem over
in
topic "other". What happens when we have this, and the conref
pulls in
a
phrase with id="test":
<section id="thing">
<title>This is a silly section</title>
<note id="test">note that IDs can
be a problem</note>
<p>Look at that note: <xref href=""#other/test"/>
<p conref="a.dita#nother/thing"/>
</section>
If we have to modify the original, then the local xref is broken
because it
now goes to a phrase instead of the note.
Right, id fixup--regardless of where you do it--always implies
fixing up both ids and idrefs. This is not an easy issue--which
is why I don't think we should be defining specific processing
for DITA 1.2. This will take a lot more thought; we should tackle
this much more deliberately in DITA 1.3.
paul
Thoughts?
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
"Grosso, Paul"
<pgrosso@ptc.com>
To
08/18/2009 05:34
"dita"
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
PM
cc
Subject
RE: [dita]
Issue: Map element
IDs
and references
to them
But Rob's point (I believe) is what if the silly section had
an xref to the note with the id="test"? After conreffing
it
into your topic, that xref will now link to something completely
different than the author of the silly section intended.
paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2009 August 18 16:30
To: Rob Frankland
Cc: dita
Subject: Re: [dita] Issue: Map element IDs and references to them
Hi Rob,
More specifically, the issue is this one - say I have this topic:
<topic id="something">
<title>Sample topic</title>
<body>
<p id="test">This is a sample</p>
<section conref="othertopic.dita#other/thing"/>
</body>
</topic>
Now - what happens when the referenced section brings in an element
that
has id="test"? If the owner of that other topic randomly adds
id="test" to
a note within that section, I should not have to change the ID on my
paragraph in order to make my conref valid - I should be able to
reuse
without fear of breaking my own topic.
So, the second bullet in Michael's note is specifically talking
about
how
the processors work when that id="test" value gets pulled into
the
section
in this topic. The suggestion is that, if "test" already exists
in
this
topic, the ID somehow be mangled so that the original can still
work.
So,
the result after conref would be something like:
<topic id="something">
<title>Sample topic</title>
<body>
<p id="test">This is a sample</p>
<section>
<title>This is a silly section</title>
<note id="test-gen1">note that IDs can be
a problem</note>
</section>
</body>
</topic>
Anybody already linking or conref'ing to the id "test" within
this
topic
will still be safe, and still get the item they expected.
Does that make sense?
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
Rob Frankland
<robf@sockmonkeyc
onsult.com>
To
Michael
Priestley
08/18/2009 05:19
<mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
PM
cc
dita
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
Re: [dita]
Issue: Map element
IDs
and references
to them
In the second bullet shouldn't it be the local ID that gets changed.
If the
ID of the one being brought is changed, will cause problems in the
original
use of the ID. Local author has the much safe ability to change
value
of
the ID.
Rob
--
Rob Frankland
Sock Monkey Consulting, LLC
12408 Kallgren RD NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Landline: 206-780-8850
Cell: 206-963-5541
Michael Priestley wrote:
OK, Robert talked some sense into me off-line.
I now get Eliot's point during the call today that a link
into
the
substructures of a conref'd section (for example)
is not
reliable, if
only because it requires that link resolution be done
as a
second
pass, after conref resolution, where many processes
may be
resolving
both conrefs and links at the same time as part of
a
resolve-references pass.
I also get Jeff's point about the closest target being
preferable to
the first target: for example, if I have an xref to
a list
item,
both
in the same document, then I'd want it to continue
working
even
after
I conref in something between them that introduces
a duplicate
id.
So in this case, same document=closer.
That said, I still want our behaviors to be predictable,
ie
the
same
across processors. But I don't want to make a
backwards-incompatible
change either, if I can avoid it.
So how about:
- map documents, and individual topics, SHOULD NOT contain
duplicate
ids on their elements (note should not, rather than
must not)
- conrefs that bring in an element with an id that already
exists in
the conreffing context SHOULD change the id of the
element
being
brought in, to avoid creating a collision (again note
should
not
rather than must not)
That should give a rule similar to what Jeff described in
the
call
today, and makes it recommended but not required.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Eliot Kimber
<ekimber@reallysi.com>
To
07/06/2009 09:27 AM
dita
<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
[dita] Issue: Map
element
IDs and references to
them
There appears to be serious inconsistency between what at
least
I
understand
our decisions about addressing elements within maps to be
and
what
the arch
spec says. In addition, the arch spec as currently drafted
is
inconsistent
on this matter.
In particular, we have established that the fragment
identifier
for
elements
within maps is simply the @id attribute value, e.g.
"#sometopicref".
However, the draft arch spec says this under "Map
IDs and
element IDs
within
a map":
"The id attributes for other elements in map are not
of type
ID
and
are not
required to be unique."
If this statement is true then a fragment identifier
consisting
of
just the
element ID is not sufficient to enable reliable addressing
of
elements
within maps.
So something has to give. I see the following possible
solutions:
A. Define a rule for resolving ambiguous references,
e.g.
"first
occurrence
in document order". This probably reflects current
behavior of
most
implementations.
B. Require element IDs to be unique within map documents.
Note
that
because
of shared elements between topics and maps, it's not possible
to
declare the
ID attribute for most elements to be of type ID, so this
requirement
has to
be validated by processors.
C. Make topicref IDs XML IDs and scope all other element
IDs
to
the
nearest
ancestor with a specified @id attribute (or the map element,
whichever is
nearer). Allow two-part fragment identifiers. Single-part
fragment
identifiers address the first occurrence in document
order.
Option (A) is the simplest to implement but the least
complete.
Option C is
the most complete but changes current processing and address
resolution
behavior.
As for use cases, references to topicrefs is the primary
use
case for
pointing to elements within maps, but certainly the
current
spec
doesn't
disallow other references and there could be reasons to,
e.g.,
data-about,
conref from "resource" maps, etc.
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>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave
the OASIS
TC
that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all
your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--
Rob Frankland
Sock Monkey Consulting, LLC
12408 Kallgren RD NE
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Landline: 206-780-8850
Cell: 206-963-5541
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]