"Grosso, Paul" <pgro...@ptc.com> wrote on 29/06/2007 07:30:22 AM:
The attached 12050.htm is an HTML document showing the
analysis of use of these attributes in DITA 1.1 and
detailing the suggested spec changes for DITA 1.2.
This looks like a good way to sanitize the proliferation of meanings for these
Some comments (which I've already sent you privately, but I'm repeating here
to foster some comment from others):
- An empty @href is a valid URI (it tends to mean the base directory, by
default the one that contains the current document). The proposed wording
doesn't say that empty @href is special, so the default meaning should still
apply. This isn't how DITA-OT handles empty @hrefs, which it assumes are the
same as absent @hrefs. (I think that DITA-OT does this to facilitate handling
of <topichead>.) Is DITA-OT off-spec, or is there a reason to define empty
@href specially in the DITA spec?
- @longdescref getting @...scope and @...type brethren: Is this the right
direction to go? Is it better to move the longdesc to an element and give it
the standard @href, @scope, @format and @type attributes? There was
apparently discussion about this at this week's TC teleconference.
- map/@anchorref and navref/@mapref: I don't even know if these are
URI-references, whether they have fragment suffixes or not, or whether they
are something else entirely. If they are URI-ish, then now is a good time to
pin down their format. Can anyone who uses them speak on their behalf?
Thanks again for putting together such a thorough document.