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] Cross-Deliverable Links and Key Resolution

I agree: to reiterate what I said in the TC meeting today (9 Dec): my
suggestion of having peer maps be a lower priority is a bad idea, for the
reason Chris gives.


Eliot Kimber, Owner
Contrext, LLC

On 12/9/14, 11:50 AM, "Chris Nitchie" <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> wrote:

>I strongly object to the idea of a blanket rule stating that peer-map key
>scopes are always lower priority than local key scopes. There are valid
>use cases for having the peer map be both a higher and a lower priority,
>and so we should allow map authors to express - via relative positioning
>of peer maps and local keydefs - the precedence they want.
>A map author might want to define a local override for a key defined in a
>peer map that always applies, regardless of the availability of the peer
>Another map author might want to provide local definitions for keys from a
>peer map, but place them such that they *only* apply if the peer map is
>We should allow for both.
>Chris Nitchie
>(734) 330-2978
> <http://www.oberontech.com/>
>Follow us:
> <https://www.facebook.com/oberontech>
> <https://twitter.com/oberontech>
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/oberon-technologies>
>On 12/9/14, 10:49 AM, "Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@contrext.com> wrote:
>>You are correct that this discussion is only with regard to construction
>>of key spaces in the linking map: no other processing of the peer map is
>>expected or intended.
>>You make an interesting point about a peer map that itself has a
>>to another peer map: what are the implications of that?
>>I think the implication is that a key defined in a peer map could itself
>>be bound to a key in another peer. It also means that you can't know the
>>complete root key space for a given peer map without also processing its
>>peers *in the case where a peer map could override locally-defined keys*.
>>In the case where peer maps *cannot* override locally-defined keys or
>>*always* override locally-defined keys, then the peer map is not
>>I think that's why I didn't consider this case: I had either assumed peer
>>maps implicitly define all keys in their scope or that peer maps would
>>always have a lower key definition precedence.
>>So maybe the answer is just that: peer maps always have the lowest key
>>definition precedence with respect to all local maps. That avoids the
>>issue of knowing if locally-defined keys with the same scope
>>as peer map are or are not effective: they would always be effective.
>>That leaves only knowing if a given peer-scoped key reference is or is
>>resolvable, which is, I think, a less serious issue, because processors
>>can be allowed to choose how they handle the case: report the key as
>>undefined and treat it as such or report the key as currently
>>but not undefined (using some placeholder link text, for example), that
>>is, something consistent with Chris' original proposal for how to handle
>>the undefined peer key case.
>>In addition, I think my position of yesterday where I said that the peer
>>map *must* be available was ultimately misguided. Thinking it through
>>again, I realized that in fact you can never be sure if a given peer
>>reference will actually work, even after you've produced the final
>>deliverable using the key-to-anchor map you have, so ultimately it
>>matter if you do or don't have the peer map available: the correctness of
>>any given link will depend entirely on the target deliverable that's
>>actually available: any information you have before final deliverable is
>>potentially incorrect and there's no way around that in the general case
>>(see below for a deeper exploration of that aspect of cross-deliverable
>>[More thought background:]
>>The problem I was concerned with when thinking about this yesterday was
>>that you could get different results when processing with and without
>>knowledge of the peer map's key space: without the key space available,
>>you might determine that a lower-precedence local key is effective but
>>later, when you process with knowledge of the peer key space (or, more
>>realistically, with the deliverable-specific key definitions for the peer
>>deliverable), the peer key becomes effective. And the reverse is possible
>>as well: if we used the "peer scope matches all possible keys" rule, then
>>without the peer map available, you would treat the lower-precedence key
>>as not effective, but later, if the key is not actually defined in the
>>peer map (that is, not reflected in the deliverable-specific keys for the
>>peer deliverable), it becomes available.
>>But in the face of a cascade of peer references, I think this potential
>>variability is unavoidable because otherwise the processing requirements
>>would be too high.
>>Also, it's possible avoid the problem by making all your peer map
>>references have lower precedence than any other key definition (which
>>might require some gymnastics with sequences of nested maps that
>>ultimately include the peer map references, but certainly doable).
>>That suggests that we need something closer to Chris' original proposal,
>>which was less absolute than my suggestion from yesterday.
>>Note that we're only concerned with results of non-final processing
>>(meaning processing done with complete knowledge of the
>>deliverable-specific key-to-anchor mapping).
>>For final deliverable-specific processing, where you have the
>>key-to-anchor mapping, the key processing will be consistent and
>>repeatable: any two processors should give exactly the same key
>>result (meaning there is no ambiguity about which key definitions are
>>So I think the question comes down to what processors are allowed to do
>>required to do for non-final processing.
>>I think the options are:
>>1. Require processors to treat non-available peer maps as completely
>>missing for purposes of key definition precedence determination (that is,
>>is a local key with the same scope qualification effective or not
>>effective or is a peer-scope-qualified key defined or not defined). Allow
>>(but not require) processors to construct peer key spaces when the peer
>>map is available. In this case, allow processors to ignore any peer map
>>references within the directly-addressed peer map (that is, let them
>>infinite regress).
>>2. Allow (but not require) processors to treat peer scopes as matching
>>all-possible keys in the scope. Also allow processors to construct peer
>>key spaces as for option (1).
>>Both options may produce different results for non-final processing and
>>final processing but option (2) imposes less processing overhead (because
>>you never have to worry about constructing the peer key space).
>>At the end of the day cross-deliverable addressing is always potentially
>>incomplete because the two deliverables may be produced asynchronously
>>therefore might be out of sync: even if you have what you think is a
>>correct set of key-to-anchor mappings for a given target deliverable, it
>>might not reflect the actual deliverable. There's simply no way around
>>that in the general case.
>>Thus, anything we put in the spec to try to ensure correctness of
>>cross-deliverable links is ultimately doomed to fail.
>>So I think whatever rules we define have to both recognize this inherent
>>unreliability and give processors the flexibility to be as rigorous or
>>light-weight as they choose as long as the implications for a given
>>processing choice are clear.
>>[End thought background]
>>Eliot Kimber, Owner
>>Contrext, LLC
>>On 12/9/14, 8:57 AM, "Helfinstine, David" <dhelfinstine@ptc.com> wrote:
>>>I am still a little uncomfortable with some of the statements expressed
>>>below, but I came up with a couple statements that may / may not be
>>>correct to at least help me get closer to comfort.
>>>Peer maps with no keyscope (all maps defined with DITA 1.2 and prior).
>>>this case "any" key not defined somewhere else "may" be defined in the
>>>peer map. So any message I think would be the same as before DITA 1.3,
>>>need to say it "could" be in a peer map. (One thing is that if there is
>>>fallback markup in a key reference, then no message would be output in
>>>any case). I don't know if it would be good to note in a composition
>>>"peer" maps were found in this case. If we were to keep to our
>>>from DITA 1.2 then we would not report this,  from the DITA 1.2
>>>definition of peer in scope.
>>>Peer maps with keyscopes (DITA 1.3) may need to have new behavior in
>>>they need to be accessible (in some way, either in fact, or by proxy)
>>>key space processing. Since this is "new" to DITA 1.3 I think that might
>>>be acceptable as a "should". If there is a keyscope then at least we
>>>could possibly be able to know if a message be issued if a keyref could
>>>not be resolved (because it would have a scope identifier). However, if
>>>key is resolved by some other reference found in a map or submap with a
>>>scope-identifier but "might" have been defined in a peer, I don't think
>>>message should be output. I see a lot of noise that could be generated.
>>>Peer maps that have submaps that are local/peer also need to be
>>>processed, so this rule keeps going right? Peer maps may now have their
>>>own whole processing tree, with keys, more keyscopes, etc. Again, only
>>>a keyscope is set on a peer map would we want to provide messages, etc.
>>>about any potential keyref not found. One thing that could happen is
>>>the "peer" map could define a keyscope for the local map we are
>>>processing since they are peers of each other. That peer map would want
>>>to have references to our "local" map, probably with some sort of
>>>keyscope. I see possible circular references happening with this, but
>>>perhaps can be sorted out.
>>>And, we are defining this for peer map processing of key spaces only,
>>>correct. Peer still means we don't normally process the peer map during
>>>normal processing of topics, correct? Or is that "scope" also expanded?
>>>It seems that if peer maps include key references to items in the peer
>>>map, then a new category of messages might now be "you do not have a
>>>topic defined in local map, but in a peer map". That may be OK also, but
>>>there are certainly some processing implications when you open this up.
>>>These may be non-issues as this is still swirling in my mind, but
>>>I should put them down.
>>>-Dave H.
>>>Dave Helfinstine
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org] On
>>>Behalf Of Eliot Kimber
>>>Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 5:36 PM
>>>To: Chris Nitchie; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
>>>Subject: Re: [dita] Cross-Deliverable Links and Key Resolution
>>>In thinking this through I've come to the conclusion that Chris'
>>>is the correct one: there needs to always be a peer map that defines the
>>>keys defined in that map (or more abstractly, access to the peer map's
>>>root key space). If this is the case then normal key processing rules
>>>apply at all times and there's no need to have any special rules about
>>>key name matching.
>>>I think the best way to express this in the specification is in terms of
>>>key space construction:
>>>If the peer map's root key space is not available:
>>><li>The processor MUST behave as though there was no peer map reference
>>>for the purpose of constructing the local key spaces. Processors SHOULD
>>>report locally-defined keys that could be overridden by keys defined in
>>>the peer map</li> <li>References to keys that would only be defined in
>>>the peer key space MUST be treated as undefined.</li> </ul> <note>The
>>>practical implication of this rule is that the owners of peer maps
>>>provide at least a set of key definitions for those keys available in
>>>peer map even if the peer map itself is not or cannot be made available
>>>(for example, for security reasons). If the owner of the peer map does
>>>not make the full map or key definitions available, the author of the
>>>linking map should create a set of key definitions to serve as a "proxy"
>>>for the peer map.
>>><note>When peer maps are referenced from the local map such that keys
>>>defined in the peer map could override keys with the same scope
>>>qualification defined in the local map, processors must have access to
>>>the peer map's root key space in order to accurately construct the local
>>>key spaces.
>>>A locally-defined key can be overridden by a peer map if the
>>>locally-defined key is defined in a submap with a lower key definition
>>>precedence than the peer map. For example, in this map:
>>>  <mapref scope="peer"
>>>    keyscope="book-02"
>>>    href="../book-02/book-02.ditamap"
>>>  />
>>>  <mapref scope="local"
>>>    keyscope="book-02"
>>>    href="book-02-overrides.ditamap"
>>>  />
>>>  ...
>>>The peer map <filepath>book-02.ditamap</filepage> is included before the
>>>local submap  <filepath>book-02-overrides.ditamap</filepath>. This gives
>>>it higher import precedence, meaning that any keys it defines would
>>>override any keys defined in the
>>><filepath>book-02-overrides.ditamap</filepath> map (which has the same
>>>scope name as the peer map). But a processor cannot determine if any
>>>defined in the <filepath>book-02-overrides.ditamap</filepath> map are
>>>overridden unless it knows what the key space for the peer map is.
>>><p>If the order of these two maps is reversed:
>>><mapref scope="local"
>>>  keyscope="book-02"
>>>  href="book-02-overrides.ditamap"
>>><mapref scope="peer"
>>>  keyscope="book-02"
>>>  href="../book-02/book-02.ditamap"
>>>  />
>>>Then the local map <filepath>book-02-overrides.ditamap</filepath> has a
>>>higher key definition precedence and therefore any keys defined in that
>>>map would override the same keys defined in the peer map. In that case
>>>the peer map key space is not needed in order to determine the effective
>>>key definitions in the local map's key spaces.
>>>Eliot Kimber, Owner
>>>Contrext, LLC
>>>On 12/8/14, 3:01 PM, "Chris Nitchie" <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>
>>>>That's not quite what I'm saying, and I feel pretty strongly that we
>>>>shouldn't special-case peer map scope precedence. What I'm trying to
>>>>at is this:
>>>><mapref keyscope="otherPub" scope="peer" href="pub.ditamap"/>
>>>><xref keyref="otherPub.someKey"/>
>>>>Here is how I would want my processor to behave:
>>>>* If pub.ditamap *can* be loaded, and the map does not contain a
>>>>definition for 'someKey', processors should issue a WARNING or an ERROR
>>>>stating that no definition for the referenced key could be found.
>>>>* If pub.ditamap can be loaded and it contains a definition for
>>>>huzzah, move on.
>>>>* If pub.ditamap cannot be loaded, and no other definition for
>>>>otherPub.someKey is found, processors should issue a MESSAGE or *maybe*
>>>>WARNING (*NOT* an ERROR) stating that the key could not be resolved,
>>>>may be defined in the peer map. (This, I think, is where we differ.)
>>>>* If pub.ditamap cannot be loaded but the local map contains a
>>>>for otherPub.someKey, huzzah, move on.
>>>>Chris Nitchie
>>>>(734) 330-2978
>>>> <http://www.oberontech.com/>
>>>>Follow us:
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/oberontech>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/oberontech>
>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/oberon-technologies>
>>>>On 12/4/14, 4:10 PM, "Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@contrext.com> wrote:
>>>>>I think I see what you're getting at.
>>>>>Applying the normal key definition precedence rules, if the map is as
>>>>>show it:
>>>>><mapref scope="peer" keyscope="otherPub" href="otherPub.ditamap"/>
>>>>><keydef keys="otherPub.about" href="aboutThatOtherPub.dita"/>
>>>>>Then if the peer map also defines the key "about" that will override
>>>>>local keydef (by normal key definition precedence) but if it doesn't
>>>>>define it, then the local one would be effective.
>>>>>On the other hand, if the map was:
>>>>><keydef keys="otherPub.about" href="aboutThatOtherPub.dita"/>
>>>>><mapref scope="peer" keyscope="otherPub" href="otherPub.ditamap"/>
>>>>>Then the first keydef clearly takes precedence over the peer scope,
>>>>>by normal key precedence rules.
>>>>>That suggests that the rule has to be that peer scopes take precedence
>>>>>over any later-defined key with the same scope qualifier. One way to
>>>>>this is that a peer scope implicitly defines *all possible* keys in
>>>>>scope. That resolves the ambiguity in a clear and simple way. We can
>>>>>say explicitly that processors may issue a warning in this case,
>>>>>it could be that the map author really did want to override that one
>>>>>and so they need to move it before the peer scope. That also suggests
>>>>>as a matter of best practice, peer scope maprefs should go last in the
>>>>>The only other option I can think of is actually requiring that the
>>>>>maps be present at processing time and that was never our intent and
>>>>>only be necessary to handle this case. It would set up a "Simon says"
>>>>>requirement where you might be forced to create maps that declare
>>>>>peer keys you decide to reference just so that the processor won't
>>>>>complain, where you would otherwise not ever need the actual peer maps
>>>>>because you're otherwise just using the key-to-address maps provided
>>>>>the target publications.
>>>>>Eliot Kimber, Owner
>>>>>Contrext, LLC
>>>>>On 12/4/14, 2:38 PM, "Chris Nitchie" <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>
>>>>>>There is no way to tell whether a key reference is to a peer map
>>>>>>looking at it. You can tell if it specifies a scope qualifier that is
>>>>>>mapped to a peer map, but that's not a 100% guarantee that the key
>>>>>>appear in that peer map.
>>>>>><mapref scope="peer" keyscope="otherPub" href="otherPub.ditamap"/>
>>>>>><keydef keys="otherPub.about" href="aboutThatOtherPub.dita"/>
>>>>>>If, in a map containing the above, you see keyref="otherPub.intro",
>>>>>>otherPub.ditamap isn't available, there is *no way* for any processor
>>>>>>tell with 100% certainty whether it's a reference to a key that
>>>>>>defined in the other publication, and so shouldn't be reported on, or
>>>>>>reference to a missing key definition in the 'local' keyscope
>>>>>>and so should be called out.
>>>>>>You can only know if a given key is or is not resolvable when you
>>>>>>the final deliverable of the document doing the linking: between the
>>>>>>you author the link and when you produce the final form, anything
>>>>>>happen to the target document.
>>>>>>For all these reasons, peer key references simply have to be ignored
>>>>>>the purpose of determining whether or not a key is resolvable as long
>>>>>>you're not producing the final-form deliverable.
>>>>>>At which point it's too late. There simply must be a way to validate
>>>>>>keyrefs prior to final publication. If a keyref is not resolvable
>>>>>>the local key scope structure, but looks like it could refer to a key
>>>>>>an unavailable peer map, processors should say something. I don't
>>>>>>they should necessarily say the same thing they say for unambiguously
>>>>>>unresolvable keyrefs (which is, I think, what the current language
>>>>>>mandates), but they should say *something*.
>>>>>>Chris Nitchie
>>>>>>(734) 330-2978
>>>>>> <http://www.oberontech.com/>
>>>>>>Follow us:
>>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/oberontech>
>>>>>> <https://twitter.com/oberontech>
>>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/oberon-technologies>
>>>>>>On 12/4/14, 1:45 PM, "Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@contrext.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>I think there may be some confusion about how I intended
>>>>>>>references to be processed. This was captured in the discussion that
>>>>>>>Michael and I had about how to implement cross-deliverable link
>>>>>>>but since that concept didn't get included in the 1.3 spec I think
>>>>>>>people have not paid attention to it.
>>>>>>>I think the relevant aspect of cross-deliverable linking for this
>>>>>>>discussion is that the facility as specified explicitly does not
>>>>>>>that you know for sure that given peer key will actually be defined
>>>>>>>the time you author the link*. The reason for this is that the
>>>>>>>publications involved may be developed and produced asynchronously
>>>>>>>with little coordination. Thus the keys you want to link to may not
>>>>>>>fact have been literally defined at the time you author the links.
>>>>>>>You can only know if a given key is or is not resolvable when you
>>>>>>>the final deliverable of the document doing the linking: between the
>>>>>>>you author the link and when you produce the final form, anything
>>>>>>>happen to the target document.
>>>>>>>In addition, if you use the generic key-based implementation
>>>>>>>Michael and I developed, all references to peer keys become local
>>>>>>>references when you produce the final deliverable so normal key
>>>>>>>rules apply during that final deliverable production process.
>>>>>>>For all these reasons, peer key references simply have to be ignored
>>>>>>>the purpose of determining whether or not a key is resolvable as
>>>>>>>you're not producing the final-form deliverable.
>>>>>>>The reason that there is this distinction between production of the
>>>>>>>final-form deliverable and any other processing you might be doing
>>>>>>>because resolving cross-deliverable links requires a multi-pass
>>>>>>>conceptually and that's how a lot of processors will implement it.
>>>>>>>particular, it is possible to have any amount of time elapse between
>>>>>>>you do pass 1, as described below, and when you do pass 2: there is
>>>>>>>requirement that they be performed together in time. Therefore I
>>>>>>>can reasonably expect that most processors will actually reflect
>>>>>>>pass in their implementations.
>>>>>>>The passes are:
>>>>>>>Pass 1: Each publication involved in cross-deliverable linking is
>>>>>>>processed once to determine, *for that publication*, what
>>>>>>>anchors any keys become for that deliverable. This mapping of
>>>>>>>keys-to-deliverable-addresses is saved for use in subsequent passes
>>>>>>>was the details of how this data could be saved that Michael and I
>>>>>>>discussed and arrived at the proposed interchange solution of using
>>>>>>>intermediate key definitions).
>>>>>>>For example, if topic "topic-01.dita" is referenced by the topicref:
>>>>>>> <topicref keys="chapter-01" href="topic-01.dita">
>>>>>>>in the map and if for HTML output the result is HTML file
>>>>>>>"chapter-01.html", then the deliverable-specific key-to-anchor
>>>>>>>would be "key 'chapter-01' maps to HTML file 'chapter-01.html'" for
>>>>>>>deliverable. This mapping can be represented by a normal key
>>>>>>>the form:
>>>>>>><keydef keys="chapter-01"
>>>>>>>  href="../../publication-02/chapter-01.html"
>>>>>>>  scope="external"
>>>>>>>  format="html"
>>>>>>>Pass 2: Each publication involved in cross-deliverable linking is
>>>>>>>processed again, this time using the deliverable-specific
>>>>>>>mappings for each of the target publications to resolve any key
>>>>>>>to those publications.
>>>>>>>Note that pass 1 does not *require* that any target peer maps be
>>>>>>>because you're only concerned with keys within each publication
>>>>>>>generating that publication's key-to-anchor map).
>>>>>>>It is not until pass 2 that the processor has to be able to resolve
>>>>>>>cross-deliverable keys and that is the point at which failures can
>>>>>>>should be reported.
>>>>>>>Note also that there is an inherently loose coupling between these
>>>>>>>phases: in the general case you don't know when or if any given
>>>>>>>deliverable will itself be available and therefore you don't
>>>>>>>know during pass 1 processing if a given key will or won't actually
>>>>>>>resolvable when you go to do pass 2. You might have authored links
>>>>>>>key that you expect will be defined but doesn't happen to be defined
>>>>>>>the target publication at authoring time. As long as that key is
>>>>>>>and resolvable when you do pass 2, it's all good.
>>>>>>>Thus, there can be processing contexts in which it is not known, and
>>>>>>>doesn't need to be known, that a peer key reference can't be
>>>>>>>namely the pass-1 processing for each publication.
>>>>>>>However, *if the peer maps are available*, processors certainly can
>>>>>>>the key definitions if they choose to and report the issue. But how
>>>>>>>manage your related publications relative to each other and the
>>>>>>>of deliverables is entirely a business decision: you could impose
>>>>>>>tight controls or very loose controls, depending on what you need.
>>>>>>>The DITA-defined aspects of the process accommodate both loose and
>>>>>>>For that reason, we cannot state the rule for peer keys as "if you
>>>>>>>resolve the key it is treated as an unresolvable key" because there
>>>>>>>now valid processing contexts where you simply don't know if the key
>>>>>>>is not resolvable.
>>>>>>>I think the rule has to be stated in terms of producing final
>>>>>>>deliverables: at that point, the normal unresolvable key rules
>>>>>>>But, there's more:
>>>>>>>The general mechanism Michael and I arrived at uses intermediate key
>>>>>>>definitions as the way of capturing the key-to-anchor binding, as
>>>>>>>The basic idea is that in pass 1 you generate a set of key
>>>>>>>that reflect the key-to-anchor binding for the deliverable you're
>>>>>>>creating. These keys are declared as scope="external" and with a
>>>>>>>reflecting the target deliverable (e.g., format="html", format="pdf"
>>>>>>>whatever it is).
>>>>>>>In pass 2, each publication that links to that deliverable literally
>>>>>>>includes those keys before any locally-defined keys so that the
>>>>>>>deliverable-specific keys take precedence.
>>>>>>>In this scenario, during pass 2 processing the key definitions are
>>>>>>>local to the publication making the cross-deliverable link, not
>>>>>>>so normal key processing rules apply: either the key is defined and
>>>>>>>all good or it's not and normal undefined key rules apply.
>>>>>>>Given this implementation approach, it should be clear that
>>>>>>>should ignore peer key references, at least for the purposes of
>>>>>>>unresolvable key rules, because they can't know for sure if the key
>>>>>>>is not resolvable in the general case.
>>>>>>>However, DITA users can choose to impose a rule that all peer maps
>>>>>>>available during pass 1 processing and that they should reflect the
>>>>>>>set of keys that will be available in that publication. This is the
>>>>>>>"tightly controlled interlinked publication set" use case, e.g.,
>>>>>>>might be provided by a CCMS that manages the authoring and
>>>>>>>all the publications in a related set, enforcing specific business
>>>>>>>for release and publication. (This was the use case I typically had
>>>>>>>mind when thinking about this problem, e.g., the "all-knowing
>>>>>>>process manager".)
>>>>>>>In that case processors can check the resolvability of peer key
>>>>>>>early and report them or treat them as unresolvable during pass 1
>>>>>>>some appropriate workflow checkpoint where it is required that all
>>>>>>>be resolvable). But that is an implementation and business rule
>>>>>>>that is not inherent in the cross-deliverable link mechanism and
>>>>>>>cannot be mandated by the standard.
>>>>>>>Note that Michael had a completely different and equally-valid use
>>>>>>>mind: the "disconnected and lightly coordinated interlinked document
>>>>>>>where publications that link to each other are managed by different
>>>>>>>with very little direct coordination other than the interchange of
>>>>>>>key-to-anchor maps necessary to produce publications that link to
>>>>>>>In the context of Michael's use case, it should be clear that trying
>>>>>>>enforce key resolvability during pass 1 is simply not generally
>>>>>>>in some cases, not possible, because you simply don't have the
>>>>>>>key-to-anchor mapping during initial authoring or maybe not until
>>>>>>>final deliverable generation for publication.
>>>>>>>In this disconnected case you might expect owners of documents to
>>>>>>>interchange maps that provide just the key definitions to which
>>>>>>>publications are allowed to link. In that case, early validation of
>>>>>>>references would be possible. But again, this level of coordination
>>>>>>>required by the facility as specified or intended.
>>>>>>>Eliot Kimber, Owner
>>>>>>>Contrext, LLC
>>>>>>>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:
>>>>>>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:
>>>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:

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