Re: [docbook-tc] related links in assembly

["Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net>]

Norm said:
> That's not as satisfying to me. How about instead we allow relationship
> to contain (instance|relatedlink)+ ?

OK, I understand that instance points to a resource in the current assembly, but I 
don't understand this version of relatedlink.  Is is the same as an inline 
relatedlink?  If so, then it is pointing to an id in the resolved content, rather than 
a resource id.

Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
bobs@sagehill.net


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>
To: <docbook-tc@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [docbook-tc] related links in assembly

"Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net> writes:

> A relatedlink element allows these attributes:
>
>  targetdoc  targetptr  xlink:href  endterm  xrefstyle
[...]
>
> Norm followed up with a message regarding related links in an assembly [2]:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> At the end of our call about linking (which I think was very
> productive), we got snarled up a question about context. For inline
> related links, the context is the container in which they occur (or
> one of its ancestors). For relationship elements, it seemed like there
> wasn't a context. But I think I've worked it out.
>
> For any collection, if the current element is a member of that
> collection, then all the other members are its related links.
>
> So, given this relationship:
>
>    <relationship type="collection">
>      <association>Advanced User Topics</association>
>      <instance linkend="xidi.parameters.syntax"/>
>      <instance linkend="svn.properties"/>
>    </relationship>
>
> then svn.properties is the other member when you're building the
> xidi.parameter.syntax unit (module/section/whatever) and
> xidi.parameter.syntax is the other member when you're building the
> svn.properties unit.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I propose we adopt Norm's suggestion, but I would change the
> attributes in the instance element.  Instead of linkend, I would
> suggest using the same attributes as relatedlink.  That would make it
> easy to merge relatedlinks from inline and the assembly.

Recall that "instance" is pointing to other
resources/modules/i'm-not-sure-quite-what in the assembly document, so
those need to be ID/IDREF links expressed somehow.

I'd have to rewrite my "Advanced User Topics" example like this:

    <relationship type="collection">
      <association>Advanced User Topics</association>
      <instance xlink:href="#xidi.parameters.syntax"/>
      <instance xlink:href="#svn.properties"/>
    </relationship>

That's not as satisfying to me. How about instead we allow relationship
to contain (instance|relatedlink)+ ?

That has the interesting feature that it means I could do this:

    <relationship type="collection">
      <association>Advanced User Topics</association>
      <instance linkend="xidi.parameters.syntax"/>
      <instance linkend="svn.properties"/>
      <relatedlink xlink:href="http://example.com/"/>
    </relationship>

Though it certainly introduces the problem of what text to use for
the example.com related link since relatedlink has to be empty.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | The wonder is, not that the field
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | of stars is so vast, but that man
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | has measured it.--Anatole France