Re: [dita] Changes to Bookmap for DITA 2.0

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@contrext.com>]

By “backward compatible” do you mean tagname compatible or specialization hierarchy compatible?

Hopefully you mean the tagname compatible. 

If we commit to tagname compatible it would still allow us to refactor bookmap into a system of domains plus a much-smaller map type.

For keydefs, I would prefer to add a new keydef-containing element rather than simply allowing any specialization of topicref, as that would have the effect of undoing any content model constraints.

E.g, a new element <keydefs>, specialized from topicgroup, that sets processing-role to “resource-only” and then itself allows any specialization of topicref.

It would occur before <frontmatter> in the current Bookmap model.

I have more ideas for improvement but I’ll hold them until there’s evidence that that TC wants to do more with Bookmap.

Cheers,

E.

--
Eliot Kimber
http://contrext.com
 


On 5/22/17, 11:30 AM, "Chris Nitchie" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org on behalf of chris.nitchie@oberontech.com> wrote:

    Arguably the biggest problem with the current BookMap design is the inability to use keydef and other topicref specializations at the top level. This makes it difficult to define keys, and impossible to assign <ditavalref> references. To address this issue in DITA 2.0 while keeping the BookMap grammar backwards-compatible with existing documents, I suggest we
    
    - Allow <topicref> and its specializations before <frontmatter>
    - Allow <topicref> and its specializations in the body between <frontmatter> and <backmatter>.
    
    I think this would be all that’s needed to allow BookMap to be more modular and flexible.
    
    Chris