> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, 2007 July 10 9:57
> To: Michael Priestley
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [dita] comments on 12050 plus longdescref proposal
>
> Paul (probably working with Jeff?) - that was a great write
> up. I only have
> a couple of general comments on top of what Michael said:
>
> You've got the comment that "The topicref element has yet a different
> definition for href (even though most of its specializations
> use either the
> standard definition or Alternative href definition #1)." I think the
> suggested updates for topicref/@href are appropriate - and
> should also be
> applied to those specializations, except where called out
> elsewhere in this
> document. For example, the TOC element and other lists have a
> different
> definition that would not be impacted.
So the abbrevlist, bibliolist, etc. elements will remain as in
the 12050 proposal, but the following specializations of topicref:
amendments, appendix, bookabstract, chapter, colophon, dedication,
draftintro, notices, part, preface
would be (logically) "moved" from the "Elements using the "standard"
definitions of href, format, scope, and type" into a set that all
use the topicref's description of href.
I'll modify 12050 accordingly.
>
> For authorinformation, the type attribute value should match
> that specified
> on author (given that authorinformation is a specialization
> of author).
I'll modify 12050 accordingly.
paul
