OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

Grosso, Paul wrote:

> So it sounds like it is already the case that the href values
> are always URIs and we just need to clean up the language a
> bit in the DITA 1.1 Language Reference Manual to make sure
> this is clear.

I made comments to that effect some time ago and I thought that my 
suggested changes were both sufficient and were incorporated, but I 
agree that:

"Non-DITA targets use standard URL syntax."

Is both unnecessary and potentially confusing (and inaccurate since they 
may use URI syntax unless it's our intent to specifically limit DITA 
processing to URLs, which I don't think we want to do).

What is actually the case is that *non-topic element targets* use 
*non-standard* fragment identifier syntax (the overall syntax of the URI 
conforms to the URI spec since the URI spec itself does not specify the 
details of fragment identifiers).

The values of href= attributes must be URIs. The fragment identifiers, 
when used, must conform to the rules specified in the DITA 
specification. If the spec doesn't say that clearly and directly, it 
still needs to be fixed.

Cheers,

E.

-- 
W. Eliot Kimber
Professional Services
Innodata Isogen
8500 N. Mopac, Suite 402
Austin, TX 78759
(214) 954-5198

ekimber@innodata-isogen.com
www.innodata-isogen.com

Hi, Eliot, Paul, and TC:


Should the rephrase bring out these main points:


*  The value of a DITA href is a URI.


*  A URI without a hash resolves to the top element in the file except where the top element is a <dita> element and the reference must resolve to a single topic, in which case the URI resolves to the first contained topic.


*  A URI with a hash must have a valid DITA local identifier as the portion after the hash.  A DITA local identifier consists of topicID/elementID for a subelement of a topic and of elementID for topics, maps, and map subelements.


As long as we're nailing down the description of href, are there any special considerations having to do with IRIs [1]?  I wouldn't expect so, but I have a shallow understanding of IRIs and translation issues in general.



Hoping that's useful,



Erik Hennum

ehennum@us.ibm.com



[1].   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3987



"Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@innodata-isogen.com> wrote on 05/16/2007 12:24:12 PM:

>

> What is actually the case is that *non-topic element targets* use

> *non-standard* fragment identifier syntax (the overall syntax of the URI

> conforms to the URI spec since the URI spec itself does not specify the

> details of fragment identifiers).

 

> 

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hennum [mailto:ehennum@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, 2007 May 16 15:48
> To: Eliot Kimber
> Cc: DITA TC list
> Subject: Re: [dita] clarifying the href attribute in the 
> language reference
> 
> Hi, Eliot, Paul, and TC:
> 
> Should the rephrase bring out these main points:
> 
> * The value of a DITA href is a URI.

Yes, and we should note that implies certain character
restrictions, and we need to say something about what
should happen when the value isn't a valid URI (even
if we leave that implementation dependent).

> 
> * A URI without a hash resolves to the top element in the file

We shouldn't talk about how a URI "resolves" (or what it
"references"), since that's in the realm of RFC 3986.  So...

> except where the top element is a