Re: [dita] Feature 12050--rationalizing href, format, scope, and typeattributes

"Grosso, Paul" <> wrote
on 29/06/2007 07:30:22 AM:

> The attached 12050.htm is an HTML document showing the

> analysis of use of these attributes in DITA 1.1 and

> detailing the suggested spec changes for DITA 1.2.

Hi Paul,

This looks like a good way to sanitize the proliferation
of meanings for these attributes.

Some comments (which I've already sent you privately,
but I'm repeating here to foster some comment from others):

- An empty @href is a valid URI (it tends to mean
the base directory, by default the one that contains the current document).
 The proposed wording doesn't say that empty @href is special, so
the default meaning should still apply.  This isn't how DITA-OT handles
empty @hrefs, which it assumes are the same as absent @hrefs.  (I
think that DITA-OT does this to facilitate handling of <topichead>.)
 Is DITA-OT off-spec, or is there a reason to define empty @href specially
in the DITA spec?

- @longdescref getting @...scope and @...type brethren:
Is this the right direction to go?  Is it better to move the longdesc
to an element and give it the standard @href, @scope, @format and @type
attributes?  There was apparently discussion about this at this week's
TC teleconference.

- map/@anchorref and navref/@mapref: I don't even
know if these are URI-references, whether they have fragment suffixes or
not, or whether they are something else entirely.  If they are URI-ish,
then now is a good time to pin down their format.  Can anyone who
uses them speak on their behalf?

Thanks again for putting together such a thorough
document.

-- 

Deborah Pickett