Re: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref

[ekimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 9/28/09 6:19 PM, "Su-Laine Yeo" <su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com> wrote:


> However, implementers have a very difficult time getting their head
> around the idea that you can't conref between a map and a topic even if
> the source and target element names *and content models* are exactly the
> same. When source and target element types have identical content
> models, people expect to be able to conref between them, and if this
> fails they consider the case to be a false positive. Educating people
> helps them understand that they can't get what they expect, but it
> doesn't stop them from expecting it.

Are there any element types allowed in both maps and topics that have the
same name and content model but *not* the same specialization hierarchy?

Once can certainly have element types with the same name *but very different
content* between maps and topics (e.g., topicref type "chapter" and topic
type "chapter") but if two element types are the same name *and* content in
maps and topics I would expect them to in fact be the same element type (as
defined by their specialization hierarchy).

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>