OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Re: [dita] "Fragments of DITA content"

  • 1.  Re: [dita] "Fragments of DITA content"

    Posted 10-11-2005 10:25 
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->


















    dita message
    







    [Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]
    


    







    Subject: Re: [dita] "Fragments of DITA content"
    








    You've left off the domain and class
attributes. The domain attribute in particular is defined on the topic-level
element, and would tell us whether the two paragraphs allowed the same
sets of subelements. 

    Michael Priestley
    
IBM DITA Architect
    
SWG Classification Schema PDT Lead
    
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com


    

    

    
"Paul Prescod"
<paul.prescod@blastradius.com> 

    10/06/2005 07:40 AM

    		

    

    


    To
    
    		<dita@lists.oasis-open.org>

    


    cc
    
    		

    


    Subject
    
    		[dita] "Fragments of
DITA content"

    

    

    






    http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.0/archspec/conref.html
     
    “The target of a conref must be
in a valid DITA topic or DITA map. Fragments of DITA content do not contain
enough information on their own to allow the conref processor to determine
the validity of a reference to them.”
     
    What is the basis for this statement?
Could some describe how the first of these documents contains more conref-processor-relevant
information than the second?
     
    1.
    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <!DOCTYPE topic PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD
DITA Composite//EN" "ditabase.dtd">
    <!-- Created with XMetaL 4.6
(http://www.xmetal.com) -->
    <topic id="topic_5"><title>Title</title>
    <body>
    <p id="reusable">This
is a reuable paragraph.</p></body></topic>
     
     
    2.
    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <!DOCTYPE p PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD
DITA Composite//EN" "ditabase.dtd">
    <!-- Created with XMetaL 4.6
(http://www.xmetal.com) -->
    <p id="reusable">This
is a reuable paragraph.</p>
     
    Perhaps the spec could be clearer if it were
explicit about what information the latter lacks.
     
     
    As a best practice I actually prefer the
former. The title element makes it easier to find the fragment. But a rationale
based upon information management best practice is different than one based
upon the needs of a conref processor.
     
     Paul Prescod
     
    




    







    


    [Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]


Related Content