OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

FW: [External] : Fwd: DITA review content from Bob Johnson: @id

  • 1.  FW: [External] : Fwd: DITA review content from Bob Johnson: @id

    Posted 04-14-2025 16:17

    Confidential - Oracle Restricted


    Forwarding Bob's comments on the @id topic

     

    Thanks,

    Robert

     

    ---------- Forwarded message ---------
    Date: Mon, Apr 14, 2025, 2:46PM
    Subject: DITA review content from Bob Johnson: @id



    Hi Robert,

    Thanks for helping me out with posting my comments for the TC.

    My comments:

    Paragraph 2

    "An element must have a valid value for the @id attribute before it can be
    referenced using a fragment identifier."

    I think most experienced DITA people would realize this text refers to a
    conref. It might be clearer to simply use the term conref rather than
    "fragment identifier".

    The last sentence seems out of place in the paragraph. Recommend making it
    a separate paragraph.

    Paragraph 3

    "All values for the @id attribute must be XML name tokens."

    It might be helpful to include a reference to a resource defining XML name
    tokens.

    Paragraph 4

    "The @id attribute for most other elements within topics and maps is not
    declared to be an XML ID; this means that XML parsers do not require that
    the values of those @id attributes be unique."

    "this means": vague antecedent. Should clarify. Perhaps substitute
    "therefore" or "thus".

    "For this reason, tools might provide an additional layer of validation to
    flag violations of this rule."

    Is "might" normative here? Should this word be formatted according to the
    same convention as "should" and "must" elsewhere in this section?

    Paragraph 5

    "Within documents that contain multiple topics, identifiers are scoped to
    the individual topic, excluding child topics."
    The last clause could be clearer. Does this clause mean that if a document
    includes a topic and that topic includes child topics, the scope of the
    ids is the parent topic, not the child topic?

    "This is true even if one of those topics is nested within the other"
    Vague antecedent. Should clarify. Suggestion: "The sections may have the
    same value for @id even if one of those topics is nested within the
    other."

    Note
    General observation; The note seems easy to overlook, but the point is
    important. We might consider adding a heading to this paragraph rather
    than making it a note.

    "... the presence or absence of an @id attribute on the <fn> element will
    affect how the element is processed."

    Recommend revising to
    "... the presence or absence of an @id attribute on the <fn> element affects
    how the element is processed."


    Confidential - Oracle Restricted



  • 2.  RE: FW: [External] : Fwd: DITA review content from Bob Johnson: @id

    Posted 04-14-2025 17:55

    Bob says:

     

    <quote>

    "An element must have a valid value for the @id attribute before it can be
    referenced using a fragment identifier."

    I think most experienced DITA people would realize this text refers to a
    conref. It might be clearer to simply use the term conref rather than
    "fragment identifier".

    </quote>

     

    Here "fragment identifier" means the fragment identifier component of a URI, that is, the part following "#": topic1.dita#topicid/elementid

    Applies to any use of a URI reference that points to an element: topicref, xref, conref, etc.

     

    The original sentence could be clarified with:

    "... before it can be reference by a URI reference that includes a fragment identifier."

     

    Cheers,

     

    E.

    _____________________________________________

    Eliot Kimber

    Sr. Staff Content Engineer

    O: 512 554 9368

     

    servicenow

     

    servicenow.com

    LinkedIn | X | YouTube | Instagram