On 9/11/12 6:54 AM, "Kristen James Eberlein" <>
wrote:
> Given the role of the <shortdesc> for hover text and auto-generated link text,
> I think adding <xref> is inappropriate.
Our point was that since you can already have links in shortdesc and thus
processors need to account for them in hoverhelp or whatever, adding <xref>
doesn't change the problem.
It is important to keep in mind that, at the base vocabulary level, our
primary concern must be *specializers*, not authors. Authors are served by
configured and specialized document types and it is certainly easy to
constrain away xref if you do not want to allow it in <title> in your
environment.
But if there is *even one* legitimate requirement for xref in shortdesc (and
I certainly have that requirement in the Publishing space), then I contend
we *must* allow it in the base content model for shortdesc.
If we want to provide constraint modules for concept/task/reference that
constrain xref out of shortdesc, I'm fine with that and will volunteer to
define the constraints and update the TC-provided shells.
But one of the historical problems with DITA as a base for wide use is that
many content models are over-constrained, disallowing satisfaction of
legitimate requirements in order to reflect the practice of a specific user
community.
We have to stop doing that.
Cheers,
E.
--
Eliot Kimber
Senior Solutions Architect, RSI Content Solutions
"Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together"
Main: 512.554.9368
www.rsicms.com
www.rsuitecms.com
Book: DITA For Practitioners, from XML Press,
http://xmlpress.net/publications/dita/practitioners-1/
