[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: Inconsistency in markup + xml mention domains
Based on our discussion of the highlight elements, I’d vote here to add the keyref per the prose of the 1.3 spec. I feel that Eliot’s reasoning of consistency across the board (as much as possible) and preventing surprises
applies here too. Gershon Joseph | Senior Information Architect | Precision Content Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise™
From:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Robert Anderson <robert.dan.anderson@oracle.com> It's a bit tricky to ask if anyone is using this as a way to evaluate the need. Because the grammar file never defined it, nobody
can be using keyref on these elements unless they've directly modified the grammar files distributed by OASIS, which is usually considered off limits. I'll admit that within the context of the DITA specification, I've missed having @keyref on the <xmlatt> element as a way to link to a definition of that attribute. The attribute sections link
to extended common definitions rather than repeating the same definition on every element. This means that where I'd like to list something as: <xmlatt keyref="common-attributes/attr-keyref"/> I'm instead forced to wrap the attribute in a cross reference: <xref keyref="common-attributes/attr-keyref"><xmlatt>keyref</xmlatt></xref> So, if we update the grammar files to match the 1.3 language, I might make use of that in our spec.
That said, I held off mentioning that case in my initial email because I'm not sure that alone should drive the answer here. Thanks, Robert From: Gershon Joseph <gershon@precisioncontent.com> Is anyone on the TC using keref on these elements, or has clients that use them? I have never used these elements and wonder if anyone else does… If we (the TC) are not aware of any keyref usage, I’d rather update the
spec language and keep keyref out of them. Gershon Gershon Joseph | Senior Information Architect | Precision Content Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise™
From:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Robert Anderson <robert.dan.anderson@oracle.com> Hi, I've been making my way through the tech-comm updates making updates for DITA 2.0, and noticed an inconsistency in the DITA 1.3 spec. The <markupname> element (specialized from phrase) and the
XML mention elements (7 elements specialized from <markupname>) all state that they use the universal attributes + outputclass + keyref: However, in the DITA 1.3 vocabulary files, they don't define keyref: We need to fix this for DITA 2.0. Either of these options is valid for the new release; should we:
Thanks, Robert |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]