I've published a new, and hopefully final, version of proposal 13004. I've made a few stylistic changes per suggestions from various folks, most notably some new paragraphs at the front of the 'Proposed Solution' section that attempt to better describe the proposal before diving into the technical details, and a new example explicitly covering cross-scope linking.
However, I did add two new items to the list of technical details in order to address some assumptions Eliot made in his test documents that need to be accounted for. They are:
- Just as a key definition can define multiple key names, a key scope-defining element can specify multiple scope names, separated by whitespace. The key definitions within a scope with multiple names can be addressed via qualified key names derived from any of the scope names.
- If a @keyscope attribute is specified on both a <map> element and a <topicref> element that references the map, only one scope is defined, not two nested scopes. The scope's names will be the union of unique scope names from both @keyscope attributes.
There is also a new example illustrating these points (it's the last one). I don't think these new provisions will wind up being too controversial, but I've been wrong about that kind of thing before, so let me know if this raises any concerns.
Chris
Chris Nitchie
Oberon Technologies, Inc.
2640 Wildwood Trail
Saline, MI 48176
Main: 734.666.0400
Direct: 734.330.2978
Email: chris.nitchie@oberontech.com
