RE: [dita] Question about include element and existing specializations

["Robert D Anderson" <robander@us.ibm.com>]

For me -- 100% all in favor of simplifying the key text resolution rules, even if I expect that it may end up a little bit more complex than hoped.

The one thing most likely to complicate things is that quite a lot of people today seem to use a lot of nesting to create <keyword> for their variable text. I'm not sure if this should still be allowed, or if this should be migrated to keytext:
<keydef keys="example">
<topicmeta>
<keywords>
<keyword>Reusable text</keyword>
</keywords>
</topicmeta>
</keydef>

I've also seen that where <keywords> is further nested inside of <metadata>, a legacy of early DITA versions that required the extra container.

There's no doubt that using <keytext> would be simpler, but the migration might be complicated by cases that really do want to retain the keyword. I suppose that could be another case like you raised on the call, where the safest migration could just create two copies and leave any cleanup for later:
<keydef keys="example">
<topicmeta>
<keytext>Reusable text</keytext>
<keywords>
<keyword>Reusable text</keyword>
</keywords>
</topicmeta>
</keydef>

Robert D. Anderson
DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification
Marketing Services Center

E-mail: robander@us.ibm.com 11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA

Chris Nitchie ---12/05/2019 04:58:24 PM---Thanks, Robert. Another question. Currently, the rules for determining where to pull effective text

From: Chris Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>
To: Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "DITA TC (dita@lists.oasis-open.org)" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 12/05/2019 04:58 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dita] Question about include element and existing specializations
Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Thanks, Robert.
 
Another question. Currently, the rules for determining where to pull effective text for key references is incredibly complex. The <linktext> element is essentially a fallback.  See http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/errata02/os/complete/part3-all-inclusive/archSpec/base/processing-keyref-for-text.html#processing_key_references.
 
With the addition of a new base element explicitly for specifying key reference text, how does the TC feel about scrapping the current rules in favor using <keytext> if present, <linktext> if not, and normal title determination rules (title of referenced topic, etc.)? It complicates migration but simplifies keyref resolution considerably.
 
Chris
 
From: Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 at 9:37 AM
To: Chris Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>
Cc: "DITA TC (dita@lists.oasis-open.org)" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [dita] Question about include element and existing specializations

I assumed it was oversight for coderef, because it's more or less required there for some cases.

For svgref / mathmlref I think I'd prefer to add it and stay in sync with the base. It's not going to hurt anything and there's no requirement to use it, but it could be useful in cases where you're doing something odd, just as with any reference to an XML file from the base <include> element.

For <fallback> -- I think it probably makes sense to add it, unless someone has an objection.

Robert D. Anderson
DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification
Marketing Services Center

E-mail: robander@us.ibm.com 11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA

Chris Nitchie ---12/04/2019 07:46:15 AM---The lack of <fallback> in the specializations was an oversight on my part; I was focused on backward

From: Chris Nitchie <chris.nitchie@oberontech.com>
To: Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>, "DITA TC (dita@lists.oasis-open.org)" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: 12/04/2019 07:46 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [dita] Question about include element and existing specializations
Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

The lack of <fallback> in the specializations was an oversight on my part; I was focused on backwards compatibility and hadn't thought this part through. I don't have a problem adding it to those. I also failed to add @encoding to <coderef>. I'm not sure whether it should be added to <svgref> or <mathmlref> as, being XML-reference elements, encoding handling follows normal XML parsing rules (i.e. it should come from the <?xml?> PI in the referenced file).

Chris

From: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 at 9:10 PM
To: "DITA TC (dita@lists.oasis-open.org)" <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita] Question about include element and existing specializations

Proposal #8 to add the <include> element also covered an update to coderef, svgref, and mathmlref so that they are based on <include>.

I've been working on integrating that change into the technical content specification this evening and ran into a question.

The proposal mentioned adding @parse to those three (with default values), but overlooked adding the other new attribute @encoding from the new base element. This pretty clearly seems to be an oversight (no reason to exclude it), so I've put that onto the three existing elements.

One question I'm wondering about -- with these three currently-empty elements now based on <include>, they could also allow the nested <fallback> element for cases where backup behavior is needed.

Should that element be added as a child to those three, or should they be left as they are today? I'm not sure if this was an oversight in the proposal, or was explicitly left out.

Thanks,

Robert D. Anderson
DITA-OT lead and Co-editor DITA 1.3 specification
Marketing Services Center

E-mail: robander@us.ibm.com 11501 BURNET RD,, TX, 78758-3400, AUSTIN, USA

The content of this email and any attached files are intended for the recipient specified in this message only. It may contain information that is confidential, proprietary, privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party or rely on any of its contents, without the written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with deletion of the original message, any copies and all attachments, so that Oberon Technologies can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.