[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]