OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [dita] Keywords in DITA


I agree, Erik - which is why I'd like to see the <keyword> definition changed in the draft spec to reflect one single meaning - the meaning implied by the meaning of <keywords>, and not a meaning that duplicates the meaning of <kwd> - than two divergent ones.

After that, I also agree that a userful enhancement down the road would be replacing <keywords> with something like <topicwords> or, say, <semes> or <coverTerms> or <conceptualBreadcrumbs> or <searchHooks> or <topicHandles> or something, and including all metadata elements that seek to encapsulate the overall gist of the topic into it, if they aren't put inline in the body of the text instead.

I'm new to the TC, and hesitate to propose a replacement definition myself.

Paul Prescod, do you feel like risking a definition in advance of tomorrow's meeting? Your offer to try your hand did, after all, begin this subthread.

--Dana

Erik Hennum wrote:

Hi, Dana, JoAnn, and Rob:

I'd like to submit some reservations about defining elements based on the expected output instead of the content semantics:

  • An HTML generator could legitimately choose to populate the keyword metadata with semantic words that are delimited by <term> and <keyword> elements within the text.
  • A PDF generator could legitimately choose to display semantic words associated with the topic as a whole in the page header.
  • A specialization designer should be able to specialize an element once to indicate a particular vocabulary (for instance, <chemicalterm> or <programword>) regardless of whether an instance of the vocabulary appears in the text or is associated with the topic as a whole. That's possible only if the base element can appear in both contexts. Here's an example:
    <metadata>
    <keywords>
    <chemicalterm>molecule</chemicalterm>
    <programword>element</programword>
    </keywords>
    </metadata>
    ...
    <p>You list each <chemicalterm>atom</chemicalterm> in the <programword>array</programword>....</p>

If anything, I'd suggest that the culprit in creating confusing expectations might be the <keywords> element. A metadata <topicwords> element that can contain <keyword>, <term>, or <indexterm> might be better, but I wouldn't expect serious consideration of that thought until after DITA 1.0

The need for enhancement never ends, and if we try to squeeze in this one, I'm sure lots of others will come out of the woodwork (such as the deferred <data> element).


Hoping that's useful,


Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com

Inactive hide details for Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>



To

Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>

cc

JoAnn Hackos <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>, Rob Frankland <robf@rascalsoftware.com>, Paul Prescod <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>, Don Day/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, dita@lists.oasis-open.org

Subject

Re: [dita] Keywords in DITA

erratum: "otherwise you're sending mixed messages..."

In fact, it seems to me this whole discussion was provoked by a bad definition for <keyword> in the language spec, which defined it as a keyword in the technical programming sense, while from the <keywords> definition you would have expected it to be defined as in DocBook.

We could solve the entire issue by just revising that <keyword> definition to be what <keywords> expects.

If people feel there is a need for keywords in the technical sense to migrate beyond the confines of syntax diagrams, then that's a separate issue for the folks working on the Programming Domain vis-a-vis the <kwd> element - which *is* defined as a keyword in the technical programming sense.

--Dana


Dana Spradley wrote:
      I agree on the DocBook part, but disagree on the <keyword> in other contexts is more like a word from an API or language clause.

      The <kwd> element exists for that.

      <keyword> outside <keywords> should have the same meaning it does within - outwise you're sending mixed messages to authors, and mixing up the use.


      JoAnn Hackos wrote:
          Sounds like a good solution.

          JoAnn

          JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
          President

          Comtech Services, Inc.

          710 Kipling Street, Suite 400

          Denver, CO 80215

          303-232-7586

          joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
          http://www.comtech-serv.com




          From: Rob Frankland [mailto:robf@rascalsoftware.com]
          Sent:
          Monday, March 14, 2005 9:29 AM
          To:
          'Paul Prescod'; JoAnn Hackos; 'Don Day'
          Cc:
          dita@lists.oasis-open.org
          Subject:
          RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA

          I agree, having followed this thread. Your suggested solution covers both use cases. I believe the largest number of users will want the HTML/Docbook usage and this enables the programmer writers to meet their needs as well.

          Rob

          From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul.prescod@blastradius.com]
          Sent:
          Tuesday, March 08, 2005 5:46 PM
          To:
          JoAnn Hackos; Don Day
          Cc:
          dita@lists.oasis-open.org
          Subject:
          RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA

          Okay, an emerging consensus seems to be that <keyword> in <keywords> means <keyword> in the HTML/Docbook sense.
          http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/keyword.html . It is typically hidden from the user as metadata and embedded in the HTML meta tag.

          <keyword> in other contexts is more like a word from an API or language.

          Should we just document it that way? If so, I can suggest some wordings.

          Paul Prescod



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]