I'm not sure I see the need either.
"Key" and "key reference" are parallel to "ID"
and "ID reference", as Eliot points out. And that's sufficient
for the majority of cases, where the keyref is to a simple key, not a compound
value. So I don't think the problem case is all that big.
I'm also not sure how, even if there
is a problem, adding "name" helps. Maybe we could see
an example of a problem sentence, written both ways?
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
From:
ekimber <>
To:
"Ogden, Jeff" <>,
dita <>
Date:
11/04/2009 11:20 AM
Subject:
Re: [dita] FW: Why "Key name"?
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" <> wrote:
> FYI
>
>
>
>>>
