Jeff's email to the list seems to have bounced, so I'm
forwarding this for him.
paul
Erik’s proposal sounds
pretty good to me.
He says:
“<navref> should have href, format, type and scope
attributes (with format defaulted to ditamap)”.
This is OK with me too, but I just want to point out
that the format attribute usually inherits its default value from ancestors, so
having it default to “ditamap” would make this use of format a little different
from most other uses.
-Jeff
From: Erik
Hennum [mailto:ehennum@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:21
PM
To: Grosso, Paul
Cc: DITA TC list
Subject: RE: [dita] Feature
12050--rationalizing href, format, scope, and type
attributes
Hi,
Paul:
Regarding <navref> ...
"Grosso, Paul"
<pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote on 07/05/2007 09:03:03 AM:
>
> The
navref element ... would take more changes to bring
> this into line with the rest of the referencing
attributes, and
> maybe that
isn't worth the trouble. On the other hand, if it
can
> sometimes reference a
ditamap and sometimes reference external
> non-dita content, perhaps we do need all the type,
format, and
> scope
attributes.
The <navref> element preceded
the recognition that a <topicref> can refer sensibly
to a DITA map or
external Eclipse TOC XML file.
Given that recognition, I'd suggest that
the <navref> should have href, format, type
and scope attributes (with
format defaulted to ditamap) and should deprecate mapref
in favor of href.
That way, once DITA supports local addition of attributes (which is a
possible
windfall as part of the constraints proposal), the <navref>
element could be refactored
as a specialization of the <topicref>
element with an added, deprecated mapref
attribute -- which might simplify
the base map vocabulary a bit in the long
term.
Thanks,
Erik
Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com