atom feed64 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.ditaRe: [dita] Why There are Constraints ...
FromSent OnAttachments
ekimberSep 24, 2009 6:25 am 
Ogden, JeffSep 24, 2009 7:09 am 
ekimberSep 24, 2009 7:20 am 
Rob HannaSep 24, 2009 1:15 pm 
Michael PriestleySep 24, 2009 2:53 pm 
Su-Laine YeoSep 24, 2009 2:54 pm 
ekimberSep 24, 2009 3:16 pm 
Rob HannaSep 24, 2009 8:23 pm 
ekimberSep 24, 2009 8:51 pm 
Michael PriestleySep 25, 2009 11:04 am 
ekimberSep 25, 2009 11:16 am 
Rob HannaSep 25, 2009 12:26 pm 
JoAnn HackosSep 25, 2009 3:31 pm 
ekimberSep 25, 2009 3:52 pm 
Su-Laine YeoSep 25, 2009 7:24 pm 
st...@modularwriting.comSep 25, 2009 8:13 pm 
Andrzej ZydronSep 26, 2009 10:54 am 
ekimberSep 26, 2009 3:36 pm 
Joann HackosSep 27, 2009 7:55 am 
ekimberSep 27, 2009 10:34 am 
Robert D AndersonSep 28, 2009 6:10 am 
Michael PriestleySep 28, 2009 8:51 am 
Bruce Nevin (bnevin)Sep 28, 2009 9:12 am 
Ogden, JeffSep 28, 2009 11:11 am 
Ogden, JeffSep 28, 2009 11:21 am 
Ogden, JeffSep 28, 2009 11:38 am 
ekimberSep 28, 2009 11:43 am 
Robert D AndersonSep 28, 2009 11:45 am 
Ogden, JeffSep 28, 2009 11:50 am 
ekimberSep 28, 2009 11:54 am 
Don DaySep 28, 2009 12:41 pm 
Ogden, JeffSep 28, 2009 1:33 pm 
Su-Laine YeoSep 28, 2009 4:18 pm 
ekimberSep 28, 2009 4:48 pm 
Su-Laine YeoSep 28, 2009 5:01 pm 
Tony SelfSep 28, 2009 6:49 pm.html
Rob HannaSep 28, 2009 8:44 pm 
Grosso, PaulSep 29, 2009 4:54 am 
Ogden, JeffSep 29, 2009 6:34 am 
Tony SelfSep 29, 2009 5:17 pm 
Ogden, JeffSep 29, 2009 6:25 pm 
ekimberSep 29, 2009 6:51 pm 
Kristen James EberleinSep 29, 2009 7:21 pm 
ekimberSep 29, 2009 7:25 pm 
Ann RockleySep 29, 2009 7:56 pm 
Tony SelfSep 29, 2009 8:24 pm 
Ann RockleySep 29, 2009 8:38 pm 
Su-Laine YeoSep 29, 2009 9:34 pm 
Ogden, JeffSep 30, 2009 5:21 am 
Robert D AndersonSep 30, 2009 5:40 am 
Scott PrenticeSep 30, 2009 9:54 am 
Michael PriestleySep 30, 2009 10:08 am 
Bruce Nevin (bnevin)Sep 30, 2009 10:31 am 
Joann HackosOct 1, 2009 7:46 am 
Michael PriestleyOct 1, 2009 7:53 am 
Joann HackosOct 1, 2009 8:20 am 
Bruce Nevin (bnevin)Oct 1, 2009 1:16 pm 
ekimberOct 1, 2009 1:19 pm 
Bruce Nevin (bnevin)Oct 1, 2009 3:09 pm 
Su-Laine YeoOct 1, 2009 4:21 pm 
Tony SelfOct 1, 2009 4:33 pm 
Bruce Nevin (bnevin)Jun 23, 2010 9:12 am 
Nancy HarrisonJun 23, 2010 3:42 pm 
Bruce Nevin (bnevin)Jun 23, 2010 5:00 pm 
Subject:Re: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref
From:Michael Priestley (mpri@ca.ibm.com)
Date:Oct 1, 2009 7:53:25 am
List:org.oasis-open.lists.dita

It depends on if you're talking about the source and target of the reuse, or the source and target of the conref attribute. You'd use the terms in exactly opposite ways, as we've just found.

As others have noted, that's why we should probably avoid those terms entirely, or at least scope them explicitly as Robert has done (eg "the target of the conref attribute" rather than "the target of the reuse").

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM) Lead IBM DITA Architect mpri@ca.ibm.com http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

From: Joann Hackos <joan@comtech-serv.com> To: <tse@hyperwrite.com>, "'Ogden, Jeff'" <jog@ptc.com>, DITA TC <di@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 10/01/2009 10:47 AM Subject: Re: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref

I think Tony has it right in terms of the logic. You have a source topic that contains the element and a target topic in which you place the reused element. JoAnn

On 9/29/09 6:18 PM, "Tony Self" <tse@hyperwrite.com> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Jeff.

With regard to the terms "conref source" and "conref target", I have been using "conref source" to mean the element containing the content to be re-used (with an id attribute), and "conref target" to mean the element into which the content source is included (with a conref attribute). Am I using the terms the wrong way round?

Cheers

-----Original Message----- From: Ogden, Jeff [mailto:jog@ptc.com] Sent: Tuesday, 29 September 2009 11:35 PM To: tse@hyperwrite.com; dita Subject: RE: [dita] Why There are Constraints on Conref

Tony,

I think the description in your message is correct. In another message Rob said that you had things reversed, but I think the problem is just some ambiguity in the wording so that it isn't completely clear what is the conref source and what is the conref target.

In the html file you attached there is an example of how constraints are declared using @constraints and @constraints-scope, but I think that approach is obsolete and has been replaced with a declaration that is part of @domains.

Your html file also says that you can add and remove attributes, but I'm pretty sure you can only remove attributes using constraints.

And as Rob says, the reason that you can't just test to see if the conref material is legal based on the DTD or XSD is that test would be based upon the content in a particular conref target document instance at a particular time and at a different time the same conref target document might be different and might be invalid. The current conref validation scheme gives you a guarantee that what is a valid conref will remain valid into the future. This guarantee comes at the expense of a more restrictive policy then is absolutely necessary under some circumstances. But the restrictive policy is very similar to the policy that has existed for a long time with respect to conref and domains and as far as I know that hasn't been a serious problem.

-Jeff