OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  FW: cascade vs. inherit

    Posted 08-11-2009 21:08
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Here is the conversation that Erik Hennum and I had about “inherit” and “cascade” a little over a year ago now.  Hopefully it is still useful.

       -Jeff

    From: Ogden, Jeff
    Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:40 PM
    To: 'Erik Hennum'
    Cc: 'Robert D Anderson'
    Subject: RE: cascade vs. inherit

    OK, then for the purposes of element and attribute values we won’t use the term “inherit” and we’ll saying things like:

     

       [certain] element and attribute values cascade to decedents

       [certain] element and attribute values are propagated from a map to a topic and will cascade within the topic

     

    Let me know if this looks more or less right.  No reply necessary unless I’ve got it wrong.

     

        -Jeff

     


    From: Erik Hennum [mailto:ehennum@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:02 PM
    To: Ogden, Jeff
    Cc: Robert D Anderson
    Subject: Re: cascade vs. inherit

     

    Hi, Jeff:

    To avoid confusion of type hierarchies and containment hierarchies, I'd suggest the following terminology:

    • "inherit" for type hierarchies
    • "cascade" for containment hierarchies


    Because topics are not part of the map containment hierarchy, maybe "propagate" or "populate" would be a better term.

    On the other hand, maybe obsessing about such distinctions is a little excessive...

    Thanks for the pragmatic scrupulousness,

    Erik Hennum
    ehennum@us.ibm.com

     ----------------


    From:


    "Ogden, Jeff" <jogden@ptc.com>


    To:


    Erik Hennum/Oakland/IBM@IBMUS


    Date:


    06/11/2008 09:45 AM


    Subject:


    cascade vs. inherit


    Erik,
     [The DITA 1.1 Architecture Spec]  uses the term “inherit” in the sense that certain attributes and elements inherit values from ancestors. But I think we want to change things to use the term “cascade” instead, as in certain attributes and element values cascade to their decedents.

    I want to make sure I am using the terminology correctly and Robert suggested that I check with you.

    Is this a change that we want to make?

    Should cascade replace all use of the term inherit or are there still cases where a value doesn’t cascade, but it does inherit?

    We have the case of cascading within a single topic or map document and we have the case of cascading from a map to a topic. Is cascade the right term to use for these two cases?

    -Jeff