RE: [dita] conref source and target [was: Why There are Constraints on Conref]

["Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>]

While I agree that we need to be consistent, the terms "source" and
"target" used alone will always be ambiguous. I think we need to avoid
using them and come up with new terms or phrases to describe the two
locations.  My problem, having said that, is that I'm not feeling
particularly creative and don't have any really good alternatives to
suggest.  

Some "not so good" possibilities:

   "conref location" (the location with the element that has the conref
attribute)
   "conref content location" or "content location" (the location with
the content that is being reused)

   -Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Self [mailto:tself@hyperwrite.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:26 PM
> To: 'dita'
> Subject: RE: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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