OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita] FW: Why "Key name"?


Under "terminology" proposal #12007 on Indirect Referencing says: The term "key" and the phrase "key name" are used interchangeably throughout this proposal.

  -Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 5:29 PM
> To: Ogden, Jeff; ekimber; Michael Priestley
> Cc: dita
> Subject: RE: [dita] FW: Why "Key name"?
> 
> My understanding is that a key is that which is defined in a key
> definition, that is, the binding of a key name to a resource. Is that
> incorrect?
> 
> 	/Bruce
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jogden@ptc.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:48 PM
> > To: ekimber; Michael Priestley
> > Cc: dita
> > Subject: RE: [dita] FW: Why "Key name"?
> >
> > I don't think that that distinction between "key" and "key
> > name" matters to us very much and so we should use one or the
> > other and not both.
> >
> > I happen to prefer "key name" over "key". I just think that
> > "key name" reads a little better when we are also using the
> > phrases "key reference" and "key definition".  Having "key"
> > by itself can be somewhat confusing, because it makes it seem
> > like a "key" and a "key name" are two different things. And
> > while they might be two different things in some strict
> > sense, I don't see that difference as being helpful as we use
> > the terms in the DITA 1.2 spec.
> >
> >     -Jeff
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ekimber [mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:18 PM
> > > To: Michael Priestley
> > > Cc: dita; Ogden, Jeff
> > > Subject: Re: [dita] FW: Why "Key name"?
> > >
> > > On 11/4/09 10:34 AM, "Michael Priestley"
> > <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not sure I see the need either. "Key" and "key reference" are
> > > parallel
> > > > to "ID" and "ID reference", as Eliot points out. And that's
> > > sufficient for
> > > > the majority of cases, where the keyref is to a simple key, not a
> > > compound
> > > > value. So I don't think the problem case is all that big.
> > > >
> > > > I'm also not sure how, even if there is a problem, adding "name"
> > > helps.
> > > > Maybe we could see an example of a problem sentence, written both
> > > ways?
> > >
> > > I just noticed that the 2nd review draft does have this language in
> > > the Langref topic on Using keys and keyref:
> > >
> > > " A key value consists of one or more space separated key
> > names. The
> > > following characters are prohibited in key names: ³{³, ³}²,
> > ³[³, ³]²,
> > > ³/², ³#², ³?², and space characters. The case of key names is
> > > significant. A key may not resolve to sub-topic elements,
> > although a
> > > keyref attribute may do so by combining a key with a
> > sub-topic element
> > > id."
> > >
> > > One problem with this particular paragraph is that the
> > phrase "A key
> > > value consists of" should in fact be "The value of the
> > @keys attribute
> > > consists of".
> > >
> > > However, even after making that change, it is still useful,
> > at least
> > > in the context of this paragraph, to use "key name" rather than
> > > unqualified "key", otherwise you get this:
> > >
> > > The value of the @keys attribute consists of one or more space
> > > separated keys. The following characters are prohibited in
> > keys: ³{³,
> > > ³}², ³[³, ³]², ³/², ³#², ³?², and space characters. The
> > case of keys
> > > is significant. A key may not resolve to sub-topic
> > elements, although
> > > a keyref attribute may do so by combining a key with a sub-topic
> > > element id.
> > >
> > > Note the potential confusion between the plural of "key"
> > and mentions
> > > of the @keys attribute.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that means we should use "key name" in place of "key"
> > > throughout, but this is a case where "key name" helps.
> > >
> > > 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>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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_workgr
> > oups.php
> >
> >


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]