Re: [docbook-tc] Associations in an assembly

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

Scott Hudson <scott.hudson@pelco.com> writes:
> I agree that the relationship type and association type should not hold
> human readable content, like titles. I also think you are spot on in
> suggesting that info be added to relationship to provide a title for the
> relationship!

Then association starts to feel like an attribute to me.

> So, our example should really be something like:
>     <relationship linkend="xidi.help.system" type="help_intro">
>       <info>
>         <title>New User Introduction<title>
>         <abstract><para>This is a path through the help system.  It is not
> meaningful outside of the help system.  Notice that the ids referenced by
> the instances are on modules in the help system, not on the
> resources.</para></abstract>
>       </info>
>       <association>path</association>
>       <instance linkend="help.xidi.overview"/>
>       <instance linkend="help.svn.overview"/>
>       <instance linkend="help.ex.new.help.sys"/>
>     </relationship>
>
> Truth be told, I've had a hard time understanding the difference between
> relationship@type and association. I think they serve a similar purpose, and
> would lean more toward the element than the attribute...

Anyway, Larry pushed back a bit and I feel like I was stepping out of
bounds making too many changes without WG approval, so I went back to
association and took out info.

I plan to publish V5.1b1 momentarily, so we'll have lots to talk about
later in the month! :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Abandoning rhyme and fixed rules
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | in favor of other intuitive rules
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | brings us back to fixed rules and
                                   | to rhyme with renewed
                                   | respect.--Jean Cocteau

PGP signature