As I've always understood these elements, they do not make sense when used to reference a fragment or synnote in another diagram. I know that the tools we use to render syntax diagrams in IBM do not allow these to reference elements in other diagrams.

The DITA 1.1 langspec for fragref/@href says that the target fragment "should" be in the same diagram. I have always viewed this as a "must". The purpose of <fragment> is to break out a chunk of syntax to render on its own; it seems that fragref would be difficult to understand if it takes you out of the current diagram to syntax that is part of another set of syntax.

For synnoteref, the 1.1 spec begins with "The syntax note (<synnoteref>) reference element references a syntax note element (<synnote>) that has already been defined elsewhere in the syntax diagram." The synnoteref/@href description also says that the target must be in the same diagram.

Based on our existing definitions - synnoteref cannot leave the diagram, much less the topic, so keyref would not be useful. Based on my own experience, it makes even less sense to reference a fragment that is part of another diagram, so I don't view keyref as critical there. To me this is not so much a bug as an intentional way to discourage references outside the current diagram.

Eliot Kimber <ekim...@reallysi.com> wrote on 01/24/2010 02:47:42 PM: