On 6/9/09 4:07 PM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <> wrote:
> If we leave it this way, it would be kind of us to identify combinations
> of topicref targets that should be avoided, such as those that have the
> effect of allowing chapters to nest, and point them out in the spec.
I don't think I can agree: any particular combination of topic types should
be avoided if it isn't sensible for *all possible processors*. Even in the
case of nested chapters, I can think of cases where it might be sensible,
and we certainly can't presume to say it isn't sensible.
Of course, specific processors will find certain combinations nonsensical
(e.g., a paginated output processor that gets nested chapters). And they are
(and should be) free to reject such input.
But that's different from saying it should be avoided as blanked statement.
I think it would be sufficient to point out in a note that the map mechanism
inherently allows potentially non-sensical combinations of topic reference
types when specialized and unspecialized maps are combined.
Cheers,
Eliot
----
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>
