OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook-tc message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] Very rough proposal for DocBook transclusions

Gershon Joseph (gerjosep) wrote:

> With conditional transclusion, or transclusion of content that
> contains conditions, I think we need to state whether processors
> first resovle the conditions and then perform the transclusion, or
> first transclude and then resolve the conditions. 

Yes, indeed. I postponed definition of this until we are happy with the
core transclusion functionality.

I think that natural would be to resolve conditions on ref and def
elements during transclusion and all other conditions after
transclusions are done.

> In DITA we see some
> use cases where the order in which these things are done results in a
> different result, but we didn't catch this in time to say anything
> normative about it. I'd like to hope we can address this processing
> order issue in DocBook out the door in order to ensure different
> processors result give the same results. I know Eliot Kimber had some
> use caes in DITA that demonstrated the issue. I'll ask him offline
> for pointers to those examples so I can provide some examples marked
> up in DocBook we can use to test and document this.

That would be great.

> I'd like to see
> examples 14 and 15 be followed by a more complex exmaple that
> demonstrates the different result depending on processing order, so
> that we can also determine which order should be normative and
> correct per the DocBook spec.

OK, I will add this to my TODO list.

> In Procedure 1, Step 2, is the circular link to Step 2 correct? I
> think we mean to continue with Step 3, unless I'm missing something.
> Or is the idea to then try step 2 again but further back up the XPath
> ladder? 

There is link from Step 2 to Step 1.

> I'm wondering whether we should use @linkscope or rather call it
> @refscope since it's scoping the <ref> element. I don't feel too
> strongly about this one, but the thought about possible user
> confusion came to mind.

It scopes all linking elements, including xref/@linkend, link/@linkend,
link/xlink:href="#...". But I can live both with @linkscope and
@refscope, I don't feel strong difference between them.

> Why does @linkscope="user" result in no IDREF adjustment? I think it
> may be more intuitive if a value of "none" results in no IDREF
> adjustment being done.

My feeling is that "user" better fits between other keywords "local",
"near", "global". Value "none" can raise expectation that there is no
scope for resolving links. While value "user" indicates that this
completely under user control, no magic work is done by transclusion

Many thanks for your feedback,


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member

OpenPGP digital signature

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]