And "conref element" vs. "content element" is misleading, enough
newcomers look for an element named conref as it is. The point was not
to offer a name, but to bring the relevent semantics into a different
focus, maybe more fruitful than the ambiguous source/target pair.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ekimber [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 4:20 PM
> To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Joann Hackos; Michael Priestley;
> Scott Prentice
> Cc: dita; Anderson Robert
> Subject: Re: [dita] conref source and target [was: Why There
> are Constraints on Conref]
>
> On 10/1/09 3:16 PM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <> wrote:
>
> > Gotta appreciate the sense of humor!
> >
> > But the locus of mischief isn't actually at the conref-bearing
> > element, is it?
> >
> > Maybe too verbose as handy labels, but we are talking about the
> > conref-bearing element and the content-bearing element.
>
> I had to read that twice to realize that "conref-bearing" and
> "content-bearing" were different words. "r" and "f" and "t"
> are too similar in shape...
>
> Cheers,
>
> E.
>
> ----
> Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
> email: <mailto:>
> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of
> the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com
> <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com
> <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com
> <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
>
>
