The question in this thread is whether anyone objects to Jeff's general
review comment that the term "key" should be replaced by "key name" in all
discussion of key-based addressing, as in "a key reference can use a key
name together with an ID" rather than "a key reference can use a key
together with an ID".
My initial reaction was that "key name" isn't any better than "key" and that
keys are not in fact names (because "name" implies non-uniqueness but keys
are unique, meaning they are a form of identifier, not a form of name). But
that is clearly pedantic hair splitting.
Jeff's intent, if I understand it correctly, is to more clearly distinguish
references to keys from "keyref", which in most contexts is the combination
of the reference to a key [name] and, optionally, the ID of an element
within the topic ultimately addressed by the key. Thus, there could be some
confusion between the phrase "key reference" (by which I mean a reference to
a key) and "keyref" (the attribute), which involves both a key reference and
an (optional)
ID reference.
As indicated in the discussion copied below, while I don't think Jeff's
terminology change is needed I don't see it as hurting either. But I didn't
want to unilaterally accept or reject Jeff's suggestion without
consideration by the TC as a whole.
If there's no serious objection I will use "key name" in place of "key" as I
work through comments on the linking and addressing parts of the spec.
Cheers,
Eliot
On 11/3/09 9:24 AM, "Ogden, Jeff"
