> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, 2007 July 04 19:07
> To: DITA TC list
> Subject: Re: [dita] Feature 12050--rationalizing href,
> format, scope, and type attributes
>
> "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.
> - 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?
OT behavior does not belong in the spec, but we should clarify
things if some values of @href do not mean what they mean
for a URI reference.
I don't see anything in the spec to indicate that an empty
string for topicref's href means anything special. If, in
fact, it is necessary for @href="" to mean something special
in DITA's case, we need to include that information in the spec.
Michael, Robert, Don, et al., is it the case that @href=""
has special meaning for DITA?
>
> - @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.
I have forgotten, and I haven't seen Tuesday's minutes yet.
Who took the action to develop this proposal?
>
> - 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?
I agree with Deborah that we should probably clarify these
attributes too, but I could use some help in doing so.
Is there any reason we shouldn't give these two attributes
the same standard description that we give to @href?
paul
