RE: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref

["Tony Self" <tself@hyperwrite.com>]

In the context of single-sourcing, it seems more logical to call the single
source of many content references the source, and the places in which that
single blob of content is used the target. But I totally get Eliot's point
that in the context of linking, the target of the link is the source! 

Obviously, we need to be consistent one way or the other!

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: ekimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 30 September 2009 12:26 PM
To: Kristen James Eberlein
Cc: Ogden, Jeff; tself@hyperwrite.com; dita
Subject: Re: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref

On 9/29/09 9:22 PM, "Kristen James Eberlein" <keberlein@pobox.com> wrote:

> I'm glad that Tony brought this up. The DITA spec -- and other
> documentation -- is inconsistent about this.About 50% follows Tony's
> definition of source and target, and another 50% uses the opposite
> construction.
> 
> Personally, it make sense to me that "source" contains the actual
> content -- the content that gets pulled or pushed into else where (the
> "target"), but I'd really like to know if this contradicts some formal
> definition of source and target ....

If you think of conref as a link (which I do), then source is the anchor
that does the addressing and target is the thing addressed.

However, I can see the logic in thinking about conref the other way around.

But the spec should definitely be consistent.

I discount my opinion on this matter because I'm too deeply versed in the
arcana of linking and addressing. I would support whatever option people
think is more intuitive or easier to talk about clearly.

Cheers,

E.