OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only

  • 1.  RE: [dita] conref source and target [was: Why There are Constraints on Conref]

    Posted 06-23-2010 16:13 
    A variety of expression pairs can communicate the relationship
effectively, and we're free to use any of them. The fact that the spec
has settled on one pair, referring element and referenced element,
doesn't constrain communication outside the spec if other factors
outweigh consistency.

>


  • 2.  Re: [dita] conref source and target [was: Why There are Constraints on Conref]

    Posted 06-23-2010 22:44 
    This may be simplistic, but how about [conref] pointer element for the element holding the conref?  It gets across the reality of the situation, that it's the element that contains the pointer to the content.

    Just a thought...

    -nancy

    On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote:
    
A variety of expression pairs can communicate the relationship
    
effectively, and we're free to use any of them. The fact that the spec
    
has settled on one pair, referring element and referenced element,
    
doesn't constrain communication outside the spec if other factors
    
outweigh consistency.
    


    
> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
    
                                                
    > As do I, but I also say "referencing element" and "reused
    
> element" in equal proportion.
    

    >
    
>


  • 3.  RE: [dita] conref source and target [was: Why There are Constraints on Conref]

    Posted 06-24-2010 00:02 
    




    Sure, use that if it works for 
you and for those you're talking to. Those aren't the words the spec uses, but 
that needn't constrain you.

    

    
  
    
  
    
  From: Nancy Harrison 
  [mailto:nancylph@gmail.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:44 
  PM
    To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin)
    Cc: Noz Urbina; Su-Laine Yeo; 
  ekimber; Joann Hackos; Michael Priestley; Scott Prentice; dita; Anderson 
  Robert
    Subject: Re: [dita] conref source and target [was: Why There 
  are Constraints on Conref]

    
  
    This may be simplistic, but how about [conref] pointer element for 
  the element holding the conref?  It gets across the reality of the 
  situation, that it's the element that contains the pointer to the 
  content.

    Just a thought...

    -nancy

    
  
    On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Bruce Nevin (bnevin) 
  <bnevin@cisco.com> wrote:
    
  
    A 
    variety of expression pairs can communicate the relationship
    effectively, 
    and we're free to use any of them. The fact that the spec
    has settled on 
    one pair, referring element and referenced element,
    doesn't constrain 
    communication outside the spec if other factors
    outweigh consistency.

    > 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
    
                                                
    > As do I, but I also say "referencing element" 
    and "reused
    > element" in equal proportion.
    
    
    
    
    >
    > 
    Original Message-----
    > From: Su-Laine 
    Yeo [mailto:su-laine.yeo@justsystems.com]
    > 
    Sent: 02 October 2009 01:22
    > To: Bruce Nevin (bnevin); ekimber; Joann 
    Hackos; Michael
    > Priestley; Scott Prentice
    > Cc: dita; Anderson 
    Robert
    > Subject: RE: [dita] conref source and target [was: Why 
    There
    > are Constraints on Conref]
    >
    > I usually say, "the 
    conreffing element" and "the conreffed element".
    >
    > 
    Su-Laine
    >
    >
    > Su-Laine Yeo
    > Interaction Design 
    Specialist
    > JustSystems Canada, Inc.
    > Office: 
    778-327-6356
    > syeo@justsystems.com
    > www.justsystems.com
    >
    >
    > -----Original 
    Message-----
    > From: Bruce Nevin (bnevin) [mailto:bnevin@cisco.com]
    > Sent: Thursday, 
    October 01, 2009 3:10 PM
    > To: ekimber; Joann Hackos; Michael 
    Priestley; Scott Prentice
    > Cc: dita; Anderson Robert
    > Subject: 
    RE: [dita] conref source and target [was: Why There
    > are Constraints 
    on Conref]
    >
    > And "conref element" vs. "content element" is 
    misleading,
    > enough newcomers look for an element named conref as it 
    is.
    > The point was not to offer a name, but to bring the 
    relevent
    > semantics into a different focus, maybe more fruitful 
    than
    > the ambiguous source/target pair.
    >
    > >


Related Content