>What happens by default
shouldn’t matter to the DITA specification. The 1.1 specification
is
>entirely silent about these
sorts of details. You can sort of guess from the names and some
>of the element descriptions,
but that is all you are doing. I think the 1.2 specification
>should remain silent on
these sorts of details.
So what is 12055 doing? Are those required
behaviors, or just suggested, or something else?
To clarify:
- I'm suggesting behavior only for aggregating
processes - not every possible map process
- I'm suggesting behavior that would
be a default, not a requirement. I'd actually be happy with being parallel
to whatever strength we put behind 12055. Just as long as we're consistent.
- as Robert Anderson noted, if we're
going to specify that a <chapter> reference to a bookmap should resolve
into a set of <chapter> references to the bookmap's parts, then we
should have the same level of specification for what a <topicref>
does (and I think it should do something parallel)
- otherwise, how does a user get rid
of semantics that don't make sense for the reusing context? for example,
a writer reusing a bookmap into an Eclipse TOC who doesn't want "chapter
xxx" generated.
Michael Priestley, Senior Technical
Staff Member (STSM)
Lead IBM DITA Architect
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
