|Doug Morrison||Aug 12, 2010 2:02 pm|
|Bruce Nevin (bnevin)||Aug 24, 2010 8:43 am|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 24, 2010 10:10 am|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 24, 2010 10:35 am|
|Robert D Anderson||Aug 24, 2010 11:03 am|
|Nitchie, Chris||Aug 24, 2010 12:05 pm|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 24, 2010 12:57 pm|
|Nitchie, Chris||Aug 24, 2010 1:10 pm|
|Robert D Anderson||Aug 24, 2010 1:15 pm|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 24, 2010 1:49 pm|
|Doug Morrison||Aug 25, 2010 5:01 am|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 25, 2010 6:05 am|
|Bruce Nevin (bnevin)||Aug 25, 2010 7:13 am|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 25, 2010 8:20 am|
|Doug Morrison||Aug 25, 2010 9:19 am|
|Grosso, Paul||Aug 25, 2010 10:26 am|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 25, 2010 10:28 am|
|Bruce Nevin (bnevin)||Aug 25, 2010 10:33 am|
|Nitchie, Chris||Aug 25, 2010 10:34 am|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 25, 2010 10:36 am|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 25, 2010 10:38 am|
|Su-Laine Yeo||Aug 26, 2010 3:39 pm|
|Bruce Nevin (bnevin)||Aug 27, 2010 8:09 am|
|Eliot Kimber||Aug 27, 2010 8:18 am|
|Su-Laine Yeo||Aug 27, 2010 4:07 pm|
|Don Day||Aug 27, 2010 4:30 pm|
|Subject:||RE: [dita] DITA 1.2 Review Comment: Thoughts on topicgroup, navtitle, and locktitle|
|From:||Bruce Nevin (bnevin) (bne...@cisco.com)|
|Date:||Aug 25, 2010 7:13:49 am|
None of us likes being backed into an icky corner of inconsistency; abstracting that layer of complaint about the 'unavoidable consequences' of adding <navtitle> to <topicmeta>, we might be near a kind of churning agreement in the problem description, with a may/must difference still outstanding in the proposed solution.
It doesn't matter so much where <topicgroup> 'gets' its 'groupness' from. I think you're in agreement that "A topicref that contains other elements also has the semantic[s] of groupness. The distinguishing feature of topicgroup is not that it has the semantic[s] of groupness, but that the only semantic[s] it has is groupness."
The question is what exactly the 'groupness' of <topicgroup> amounts to at processing time. What does the processor do about it? Doug, your proposal sounds to me like:
1. Tell users not to specify <navtitle> in the <topicmeta> of <topicgroup>, even though they can.
2. For those inevitable cases where they do this anyway, hey whatever floats your boat, processor.
Eliot, you reject a laissez faire version of (2). For you, the spec should say:
2. The processor MUST ignore <navtitle> in the <topicmeta> of <topicgroup>, because "[T]o give a topicgroup a navtitle is to contradict its reason for existence. That is why it has no navtitle attribute."
Those quoted words of yours, Doug, are in agreement with what I quoted from Eliot in the 2nd paragraph above; maybe agreement is not so far away on this may/must distinction as well?
-----Original Message----- From: Eliot Kimber [mailto:ekim...@reallysi.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 9:06 AM To: Doug Morrison Cc: dita; Robert D Anderson; Bruce Nevin (bnevin); Nitchie, Chris Subject: Re: [dita] DITA 1.2 Review Comment: Thoughts on topicgroup, navtitle, and locktitle
On 8/25/10 7:02 AM, "Doug Morrison" <dmor...@dita4all.com> wrote:
I think a topicgroup gets its semantic of groupness from:
1. its name 2. its intent 3. the syntax of being parent to a group of child elements.
I disagree. A topicgroup gets its semantic of groupness *from not having a title*.
In particular, item 3 is not distinguishing: any topicref with child topicrefs is a group. Likewise, the intent is not a distinguisher because you can only know the intent by looking at the name (and then knowing that a specific name has specific rules associated with it).
That's the point I'm trying to make: currently any topicref acts as a group (does not affect navigation) IFF it has neither a navigation title nor a bound resource.
So there are only two possible distinguishers for topicgroup:
A. Lack of a navtitle (DITA 1.1) B. The specific type mapgroup-d/topicgroup (implication of new language in 1.2 trying to explain away unavoidable allowance of navtitle as descendant of topicgroup)
I think (B) is the wrong thing to do but I will accept that decision if it is the consensus otherwise.
But let's not pretend that this is anything other than a special case that privileges topicgroup in a way that no other DITA-defined topicref is privileged and in a way that no other non-DITA-defined topicref specialization can be privileged except by specializing from topicgroup.
Also, saying "processors are free to ignore the navtitle of a topicgroup element" is making it a special case because it means I cannot simply have a rule that says "if no navtitle no effect on navigation". And it cannot be a "may" it must be a "must", as in, "topicgroup's with navigation titles MUST NOT contribute to navigation".
-- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 512.554.9368 www.reallysi.com www.rsuitecms.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php