dita — archive

[Eliot Kimber <pgrosso@ptc.com>]

I think the issue may be a misinterpretation of the term "map tree", which is used in this statement: For a given key there is at most one effective definition within a key space. A key definition is the effective definition for a given key if it is the first, in document order, within the map document that contains it, and is the first in the map tree in breadth-first order. Map tree is defined in the preceding section titled "Key spaces": For the purposes of determining the effective key definitions for the key space represented by a given root map, a *map tree* is determined by considering only directly addressed, local scope maps descending from the root map. (Emphasis mine) If you took "map tree" to mean "the tree of elements within a map" I can see how you might get confused. However, the statement above would be self contradictory if map tree had that meaning. I also see that "map tree" is not formally defined in the Linking and Addressing terminology section--it probably should be. At one time I think we did have an illustrative example of how key definitions work but I could simply be remembering the early work we did to define the mechanism. I certainly agree than an example or two would help to clarify things. Cheers, E. On 1/21/11 1:17 PM, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote: > Sounds like the spec isn't clear enough here. > > First let's hear from others to make sure we all agree > on what should be the case. > > Then let's figure out how to make it clear enough in > the spec that smart people like Eliot and Chris and > Kris don't come to different conclusions reading the > same spec. > > paul > >>