Re: Inconsistency in markup + xml mention domains

Based on our discussion of the highlight elements, I’d vote here to add the keyref per the prose of the 1.3 spec. I feel that Eliot’s reasoning of consistency across the board (as much as possible) and preventing surprises
 applies here too.

 

 

Gershon Joseph | Senior Information Architect | Precision Content 

Direct: +972 (54) 658-3887| Email:  |
www.precisioncontent.com

 

 

Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise™

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
 If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please
 notify us by return email if you have received this email in error. ©2021,
 Precision Content Authoring Solutions Inc, Toronto,
 Ontario, Canada

 

 

From:
 <> on behalf of Robert Anderson <>

Date: Monday, 24 May 2021 at 19:15

To: Gershon Joseph <>,  <>

Subject: [dita] Re: Inconsistency in markup + xml mention domains

It's a bit tricky to ask if anyone is using this as a way to evaluate the need. Because the grammar file never defined it, nobody
can be using keyref on these elements unless they've directly modified the grammar files distributed by OASIS, which is usually considered off limits.

 

I'll admit that within the context of the DITA specification, I've missed having @keyref on the <xmlatt> element as a way to link to a definition of that attribute. The attribute sections link
 to extended common definitions rather than repeating the same definition on every element. This means that where I'd like to list something as:

<xmlatt keyref="common-attributes/attr-keyref"/>

I'm instead forced to wrap the attribute in a cross reference:

<xref keyref="common-attributes/attr-keyref"><xmlatt>keyref</xmlatt></xref>

 

So, if we update the grammar files to match the 1.3 language, I might make use of that in our spec.

 

That said, I held off mentioning that case in my initial email because I'm not sure that alone should drive the answer here.

 

Thanks,

Robert

From: Gershon Joseph <>

Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 4:37 AM

To: Robert Anderson <>;  <>

Subject: [External] : Re: Inconsistency in markup + xml mention domains

 

Is anyone on the TC using keref on these elements, or has clients that use them? I have never used these elements and wonder if anyone else does… If we (the TC) are not aware of any keyref usage, I’d rather update the
 spec language and keep keyref out of them. 

 

Gershon

 

 

Gershon Joseph | Senior Information Architect | Precision Content 

Direct: +972 (54) 658-3887| Email:  |

www.precisioncontent.com

 

 

Unlock the Knowledge in Your Enterprise™

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
 If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please
 notify us by return email if you have received this email in error. ©2021,
 Precision Content Authoring Solutions Inc, Toronto,
 Ontario, Canada

 

 

From:
 <> on behalf of Robert Anderson <>

Date: Friday, 21 May 2021 at 18:50

To:  <>

Subject: [dita] Inconsistency in markup + xml mention domains

Hi,

 

I've been making my way through the tech-comm updates making updates for DITA 2.0, and noticed an inconsistency in the DITA 1.3 spec. The <markupname> element (specialized from phrase) and the
 XML mention elements (7 elements specialized from <markupname>) all state that they use the universal attributes + outputclass + keyref:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/errata02/os/complete/part2-tech-content/langRef/technicalContent/markupname.html

http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/dita/v1.3/errata02/os/complete/part2-tech-content/langRef/technicalContent/xmlelement.html

 

However, in the DITA 1.3 vocabulary files, they don't define keyref:

https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/blob/master/doctypes/rng/technicalContent/rng/markupDomain.rng#L67-L72

https://github.com/oasis-tcs/dita/blob/master/doctypes/rng/technicalContent/rng/xmlDomain.rng#L181-L186

 

We need to fix this for DITA 2.0. Either of these options is valid for the new release; should we:

Add keyref to these elements (update 2.0 to match the 1.3 specification prose), or

Remove keyref from the spec (update 2.0 to match the 1.3 grammar files)

Thanks,

Robert