Re: Keyref/conkey ref conversion strategy - keyref all the things? #conref
Iit should be easy enough to generate the necessary map structure if the glossary already exists or have whoever is responsible for the glossary to do it as they add glossary entries.
Once you have created the topicref pattern for pointing to glossary entries, it shouldn't matter whether those glossary entry topics are managed as a standalone files or are subtopics within a larger glossgroup topic--the actual markup creation effort is the same (or at least it should be since the only difference is whether or not the href on the key-defining topicref has a fragment identifier pointing to the specific topic).
It is certainly the case that a lot of DITA design and tool implementation is predicated on managing topics as individual XML documents but that should never be a requirement.
On 2/19/20, 10:21 AM, "Chris Papademetrious" <email@example.com on behalf of firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I tripped across a complication with the keyref-all-the-things approach. :(
In DITA, a glossary is implemented as a specialized topic (<glossgroup>) that contains terms as nested specialized subtopics (<glossentry>). Unfortunately this means that the map must define @keys values for all glossary terms. :( It's impractical to expect a writer to do this.
I'll ask our writers to use hrefs when referencing glossary terms, but I expect some pushback adding rules about requiring them to remember what kind of links to use where.
I wish DITA allowed ID-based references to subtopic elements nested within a topic, such as
as this still provides indirection value via the parent's key.
I found some discussion on this topic (hah!) in the comments section of