Re: keyref and conkeyref best practice and processing flow


Please, l am business journalist trying to transit to technical writing. Where should l start from? I hold a BA Mass Communications and a PGD BA. I have passed a few Google digital certification.
Please advise me.
Kind regards,
Daniel Essiet

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020, 11:38 PM Dan Vint <dvint@...> wrote:
Thanks for the pointer. I hadn't paid attention to how our ccms created the system generated keys were defined. It turns out they use local. I'm asking them why as even without this issue, resource-only seems to be the correct choice.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Radu Coravu <radu_coravu@...>
Date: 8/23/20 10:47 PM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [dita-users] keyref and conkeyref best practice and processing flow

Hi Dan,

This should work. Please make sure that the topic inside which that
reused <p> element is located is referenced in the DITA Map as a
topicref with the "processing-role='resource-only'" attribute set on it:

If that did not help maybe you can give us more details like:

1) The DITA OT version you are using.

2) The output format you are publishing to.

3) Attach a small sample DITA project exemplifying the problem.


Radu Coravu
Oxygen XML Editor

On 8/21/20 7:57 PM, Dan Vint wrote:
> I've been googling around for information on using keyref and
> conkeyref and not finding confirmation for something I thought I saw.
> I believe there is a recommendation (maybe requirement) that you can't
> nest these proceses. My testing seems to say it isn't supported, but
> maybe there is a feature I've not setup properly.
> We are trying to build a para that will be keyconref'd into a variety
> of locations. In this para we are also trying to use variables for the
> product names that are defined with keys.
> I've done the following:
> - confirmed that copying the para into the referencing topic allows
> the product name variable to work - so that key is configured properly
> - conkeyrefing the para in, the product variable is not resolved. I
> don't even get a message in the OT log that indicates it is being seen.
> I'm torn between saying this is a useful feature to have if it isn't
> supported, but on the other hand I can see where it might cause an
> infinite loop if these are allowed to nest.
> I'm mainly just trying to confirm that this is the way it is and that
> I haven't missed something.
> thanks
> ..dan

Join to automatically receive all group messages.