Bug: fragref does not allow keyref

My original question about keyref on <fragref> was based on the (incorrect) assumption that it would be meaningful to have a fragment defined in a separate syntax diagram in a separate topic to which you might want to refer.
I see that the 1.2 discussion of @href for <fragref> specifically disallows that case.
Likewise for <synnoteref>.
I can imagine cases where you want to describe fragments of larger complex commands in isolation and have specific commands refer to them, rather than repeat them.
But I don't have strong enough feelings about it to argue for expanding the current semantics of syntax diagrams.
If this limitation on referencing is acceptable to the community then clearly @keyref is not useful.
Thus, I think Robert's original "not a bug" response to my bug report is appropriate and we can retire 13046.
If there is community outcry for cross-topic syntax diagram references then we can revisit this at that time, I think.
Cheers, E. On 1/26/10 8:52 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <> wrote:
> Yes, for sure, this is not a 1.2 question. >
> I was looking at the main paragraph describing <fragref>. I see that the
> limitation is stated in the description of @href farther down in the
> fragref topic. > > /B > >>