Re: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref

Without wanting to complicate this even further, won’t the
“target” means “linking target” (of the conref
attribute) approach flip-flop when it comes to conref push? If we find consistent
terminology, we’ll have to make sure it fits for both conref pull and
conref push. (I don’t think Bruce’s content-bearing/conref-bearing
terminology would work for both.)

Tony

From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:]

Sent: Friday, 2 October 2009 12:54 AM

To: Joann Hackos

Cc: DITA TC; 'Ogden, Jeff'; 

Subject: Re: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref

It depends on
if you're talking about the source and target of the reuse, or the source and
target of the conref attribute. You'd use the terms in exactly opposite ways,
as we've just found.

As others have
noted, that's why we should probably avoid those terms entirely, or at least
scope them explicitly as Robert has done (eg "the target of the conref
attribute" rather than "the target of the reuse").

Michael
Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)

Lead IBM DITA Architect



http://dita.xml.org/blog/25 

 

  
  
From: 

  
  
  
Joann
  Hackos <> 

  
 

 

  
  
To: 

  
  
  
<>,
  "'Ogden, Jeff'" <>, DITA TC
  <> 

  
 

 

  
  
Date: 

  
  
  
10/01/2009
  10:47 AM 

  
 

 

  
  
Subject: 

  
  
  
Re:
  [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref

  
 

I think Tony has it right in terms of the
logic. You have a source topic

that contains the element and a target topic in which you place the reused

element.

JoAnn

On 9/29/09 6:18 PM, "Tony Self" <>
wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, Jeff.

> 

> With regard to the terms "conref source" and "conref
target", I have been

> using "conref source" to mean the element containing the
content to be

> re-used (with an id attribute), and "conref target" to mean
the element into

> which the content source is included (with a conref attribute). Am I
using

> the terms the wrong way round?

> 

> Cheers

> 

> Tony

> 

>