The TC has subsequently agreed that simply removing the “union of relables” approach is inappropriate and can be removed for DITA 2.0. That resolves the current ambiguity.
I’ve taken the source Kris prepared and extended to make it a more complete and easy-to-evaluate test case, where the topics as rendered reflect where they are used and indicate what the expected related links
results should be. I’ve attached that, along with the Oxygen web help generated using OT 3.7.4. The web help was generated using the “force unique” option, which generates unique HTML files for use of a topic, which is what we need to fully test the resolution
of the scoped reltable links.
OT gets it almost right with respect to our desired behavior (resolving reltable links in the context of the scopes that contain them). However, the reltable in submap-02 between the submap 2 use of topic-02.dita
and the submap-02 use of topic-04 does not get associated with the submap 2 rendering of topic-02 but with the submap 1 rendering. This suggests it’s resolve the keyref to “topic-02” to its definition submap 1’s scope. (So it may be that the correct results
for the submap-01 topics is just because they come first in the map tree).
It’s also possible there’s an error in my sample but I don’t think so.
Cheers,
E.
_____________________________________________
Eliot Kimber
Sr Staff Content Engineer
O: 512 554 9368
M: 512 554 9368
LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube | Facebook
From:
dita@lists.oasis-open.org <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> on behalf of Kristen James Eberlein <kris@eberleinconsulting.com>
Date: Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 2:20 PM
To: DITA Technical Committee (dita@lists.oasis-open.org) <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [dita] Re: Scoped Keys and Relationship Tables: I Think We Need to Say Something in the Spec
[External Email]
I built a sample set using Eliot’s suggested root map, and it is attached. It has the following directory structure:
rootmap.ditamap
topic-01.dita
submap-01
---- submap-01.ditamap
---- submap-02.ditamap
---- topic-01.dita
---- topic-02.dita
---- topic-03.dita
---- topic-03.dita
Here’s how I would expect the links to be resolved:
Links generated: A reciprocal link between topic-01.dita and submap-01/topic-02.dita. Note that sub01.topic-02 and sub01.topic-02 both resolve to topic-02.dita.
Submap-01
Links generated: A reciprocal link between submap-01/topic-02.dita and submap-01/submap-03.dita
Submap-02
Links generated: None. No key definition for “topic-03” exists in keyscope “sub02”.
Total effective links for the root map:
- A reciprocal link between topic-01.dita and submap-01/topic-02.dita
- A reciprocal link between submap-01/topic-02.dita and submap-01/submap-03.dita
What am I missing? Or does the markup in your sample map need to be modified so that <topicref keyref=”sub01.topic-02/> and <topicref keyref=”sub02.topic-02/> resolve to different DITA topics?
Best,
Kris
Kristen James Eberlein
Chair, OASIS DITA Technical Committee
Owner, Eberlein Consulting LLC
kris@eberleinconsulting.com
Skype: kriseberlein; voice: +1 (919) 622-1501