Thanks—that at least provides the original proposal language. Unfortunately the proposal doesn’t actually justify why print=”no” is a useful default for references to glossary topics. It is this default that makes glossref particularly pointless. Requiring @keys makes sense and toc=”no” kind of makes sense, but print=”no” does not make any sense at all as far as I can tell. It also doesn’t explain why linking=”none” is a useful default.
This is clearly something that needs to be addressed in DITA 2.0, probably along with a general reassessment of the glossary topic design.
From: Robert D Anderson <email@example.com>
Date: Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 10:40 AM
To: Eliot Kimber <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [dita] History of the glossref Design?
I remember a lot of the discussion around DITA 1.2 extensions to the glossentry topic - they were long and difficult, with significant expansion of the original (very basic) glossentry topic in DITA 1.1. These extensions were bundled together with the new abbreviation / acronym support in DITA 1.2.
I remember less of the discussion around <glossref>, except that it was part of the same proposal, located here:
From that proposal - the glossref element was specifically created as a domain element to allow a key to be used for a glossary topic, for use with acronyms.
Like a handful of other proposals, this set of DITA 1.2 features was approved based heavily on the work of one person, who was no longer on the TC when it was time to write up actual specification language / work out the edge cases. That handful of proposals is what led directly to the far more rigorous process we put in place for DITA 1.3 proposals.
Eliot Kimber ---12/01/2016 09:16:39 AM---I’ve recently come to appreciate just how crazy (and useless) the design of the glossref element is.
From: Eliot Kimber <email@example.com>
To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Date: 12/01/2016 09:16 AM
Subject: [dita] History of the glossref Design?
Sent by: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I’ve recently come to appreciate just how crazy (and useless) the design of the glossref element is. I can’t remember the history of the design and I’m curious what the original justification for that design was. Where would that history be?
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: