dita — archive

Bug: fragref does not allow keyref

From: Eliot Kimber <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:12:00 -0000

My original question about keyref on <fragref> was based on the (incorrect) assumption that it would be meaningful to have a fragment defined in a separate syntax diagram in a separate topic to which you might want to refer. I see that the 1.2 discussion of @href for <fragref> specifically disallows that case. Likewise for <synnoteref>. I can imagine cases where you want to describe fragments of larger complex commands in isolation and have specific commands refer to them, rather than repeat them. But I don't have strong enough feelings about it to argue for expanding the current semantics of syntax diagrams. If this limitation on referencing is acceptable to the community then clearly @keyref is not useful. Thus, I think Robert's original "not a bug" response to my bug report is appropriate and we can retire 13046. If there is community outcry for cross-topic syntax diagram references then we can revisit this at that time, I think. Cheers, E. On 1/26/10 8:52 AM, "Bruce Nevin (bnevin)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, for sure, this is not a 1.2 question. > > I was looking at the main paragraph describing <fragref>. I see that the > limitation is stated in the description of @href farther down in the > fragref topic. > > /B > >>