"Grosso, Paul" <pgro...@ptc.com> wrote on 29/06/2007 07:30:22 AM:

Hi Paul,

This looks like a good way to sanitize the proliferation of meanings for these attributes.

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.