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] Types of links

I think of normal-role topicrefs not in reltables as "organizational" or
"structural" (to the degree that I've thought about a single term at all).

I've used "navigational" to refer to links within content that take you
somewhere else (xrefs, reltable-defined links rendered as navigational

Conrefs are clearly transclusion links in the sense meant by Ted Nelson.

One of the terminological challenges here is that DITA does not limit the
use of maps to the description of publication structures, even though
that's the most common case. So we can't make a statement like
"normal-role topicrefs not in reltables establish the organizational
structure of a publication" because that's not the *only* thing they can
do, unless you take "publication" to mean "any set of resources organized
into a hierarchy for any purpose", which is kind of a pointless definition.

One thing to consider for DITA 2.0 is to enable this codification of map
== publication by definition a specialization of map that explicitly means
"publication" in the sense given above. It would be structurally identical
to base map (that is, it wouldn't impose any additional constraints) but
it would allow us to then say "in the context of a publication map
normal-role topicrefs not in relationship tables establish the initial
organizational structure of the publication. The effective organizational
structure may be determined by additional processing that reorders or
augments the base structure, such as generating a glossary based on terms
referenced from topics or sorting reference entries based on
locale-specific collation rules."


Eliot Kimber, Owner
Contrext, LLC

On 12/2/15, 6:28 PM, "Tom Magliery" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf
of tom.magliery@justsystems.com> wrote:

>A brief distraction while we await The Vote.
>I've never been entirely happy about how I characterize topicrefs when
>I'm teaching people about link types. I'm happy with "navigational" links
>(related, xref, et al) and "transclusional" links (image, conref), but
>not so much with "structural", as I've called topicrefs. A colleague just
>suggested "compositional", which sounds better right this minute, but
>that might be only because it's a new name to consider, and because of
>the neat "...ional" naming parallelism.
>Do you have another word for them?
>Or do you consider topicrefs to be in the same category as conref and
>image links? And in that case, what do you call that category?
>Transclusional doesn't seem right.

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