Hi all, I’m trying to figure out a use case for scoped keys. After reading this very helpfull article (https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/56472/Understanding%20Scoped%20Keys%20In%20DIT

#conref

If you have: + keys=”key1” {blue} ++ keyscope=”scope1” +++ keys=”key1” {red} Then the resolved value of a reference to key “key1” will be “blue” in all contexts because the highest declaration wins. T

#conref

Hi list, I can't create a conkey reference to the <steps> element. When I try to save, the following error message appears: Error at file .../xxx.dita.B85, line 12, char 133, Message: Expected an elem

#conref #FrameMaker

In the referencing topic have you defined the <steps> element to include the required <step> element? You need one. You do not need more. The actual number of steps will be determined by the content y

#conref #FrameMaker

Hi Frank, The content model for <steps> requires at least one <step>, and the content model for <step> requires at least one <cmd>. This true even when using @conref or @conkeyref. Try this: <steps co

#conref #FrameMaker

Hi Bob, Thank you for your reply. I wasn't aware of this restriction. Seems illogical... I entered the code you suggested (had to switch to XML View): <steps conkeyref="key/id"> <step><cmd/></step> </

#conref #FrameMaker

Being new to DITA, I am trying to understand cases where conref should be used instead of conkeyref. As far as I can tell, conkeyref can do anything conref can do with the added benefit of indirect ad

#conref

Hi, You should use a conref where the language does not need to vary per publication. For example, if your legal department approves a set of caution and warnings that should not change. If you use co

#conref

I tend to use conref for cases where reuse is internal to a single topic, where the overhead of seeing up a key is really not needed. I use the this topic structure to implement. That said, I can coun

#conref

Hi group I have multiple similar equations in my DITA topics where only one or two values are different, so I would like to reuse the identical parts. Is there a way to do this (if necessary with a pl

#conref #MathML

Hi all, We have a help system with 2000+ topics. We're moving to a static site generator (Hugo), and I'm wondering about converting all of our xrefs into conkeyrefs. We have to re-architect our folder

#conref

Hi Ed, I don't understand, do you want to convert indirect links (keyrefs) to content references (conkeyrefs)? Can you give maybe an example with how the DITA content would look like before and after

#conref

Thanks, Radu. I want to convert direct links to indirect links using keyrefs. I'll try out your scripts today! Ed.

#conref

Hi Ed, I posted a similar question awhile back: https://groups.io/g/dita-users/topic/48674191#44715 We are relatively new to DITA. Our writers have been adding cross-book links to their content (which

#conref

Thanks, Chris, this is exactly the discussion I'm looking for (though I wasn't quite looking for it then!). We're moving from a bespoke DITA-to-Confluence system to a static site generator (Hugo). We

#conref

If you can manage it, replacing all references from topics to other things (so conrefs, cross references, etc.) to use keys is the best way to go. Within maps it may or may not make sense to use keys,

#conref

Hi Eliot, I was studying your first link yesterday :) Will check out the remainder tonight. Ed.

#conref

Feel free to ask questions here. An older paper I presented on key best practices suggests that you should always have resource-only topicrefs for your topics and then use those from the navigation to

#conref

Thanks, Eliot. We're moving to a static site generator (Hugo) where the folder/file structure determines the structure of the site. Because all of our links are currently xrefs, I thought this would b

#conref

Hi Ed, all, Our writers use nested <topic> elements in some topic files to keep tightly-related content together. One pain point with "keyref-all-the-things" is that subtopics nested within topic file

#conref