RE: [dita] Inheritance of attributes through mapref

From
Ogden, Jeff <>
Date
2009-04-14T15:58:05+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [dita] Inheritance of attributes through mapref
So back to the original question, should
@scope cascade from map to map or not?  Not sure I’m reading Michael’s
comments correctly, but I think they are an argument that @scope should NOT
cascade from map to map.

 

   -Jeff

 

From: Michael
Priestley [mailto:] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009
11:52 AM

To: Eliot Kimber

Cc: dita; Ogden, Jeff; Robert D
Anderson

Subject: Re: [dita] Inheritance of
attributes through mapref

 

Fair enough. Navref is delayed transclusion, which may
or may not be local (one reason to delay transclusion is because the resources
aren't local).

It remains logical for someone to want a cross-plugin navigation
reference/transclusion that cannot be resolved at build time but will be
resolved at runtime (ie format=ditamap scope=peer).

The rationale for scope=peer applies as well to map resources as it does to
topic resources.

Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)

Lead IBM DITA Architect 



http://dita.xml.org/blog/25

Eliot
Kimber <>

 

  
  
Eliot
  Kimber <> 

  
04/14/2009 11:27 AM

  
  
  
   

    
    

    
To

    
    
    

    Michael
    Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Ogden, Jeff" <>

    
   

   

    
    

    
cc

    
    
    

    dita
    <>, Robert D Anderson <>

    
   

   

    
    

    
Subject

    
    
    

    Re: [dita]
    Inheritance of attributes through mapref

    
   

  
  
 

  
   

    
    

    
    
    

    
   

  
  

  
 

On
4/14/09 10:03 AM, "Michael Priestley" <>
wrote:

> 

> I'd go for 2) since in fact format=ditamap
and scope=peer is basically a

> navref element. It definitely shouldn't be an
error.

Hmm. I didn't quite get this from the writeup of
navref. It sounded to me

more like delayed resolution rather than a peer
relationship, in that the

presentation effect is still that the target map
is used in place of the

reference, but the transclusion is done in the
renderer, not by the DITA

processor.

I would still take "peer" to imply a
navigation relationship, not a

transclusion relationship, the thought being that
transclusion essentially

requires local resources (because an unresolveable
transclusion can result

in meaningless results) while a broken navigation
relationship does not

result in meaningless results (even though the
total intended information

set is incomplete).

Cheers,

E.

----

Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really
Strategies, Inc.

email:   <mailto:>

office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368

2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403

www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com

<http://blog.reallysi.com>
| www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave
the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all
your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php