RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model

["Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@xmetal.com>]

> From: Erik Hennum [mailto:ehennum@us.ibm.com]
> Subject: Re: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> 
> ...
> 
> As I recall, the rationale for the chapter / appendix / part aspects
of
> the bookmap model was that:
> 
> 
> *	An unpartitioned book should be able to have chapters followed
by
> appendices

Sounds good!

> *	A partitioned book should be able to have chapters prior to the
> first part (in effect, providing an implicit first part without an
> explicit container) but must put appendices within a part

I don't understand why appendices should go in a part. That's not how it
works in the books on my bookshelf (including my own!).

I also don't remember seeing a book WITH a part that has its own
appendix, notices, amendments, etc.

> For what it's worth, having an implicit container prior to the first
> explicit container seems like a common pattern in DITA. For instance,
the
> concept body provides block content prior to the first explicit
section
> container.

I don't, in general, mind the implicit leading container model. It
actually simplifies the content model to not have OR-groups at the same
level as sequence groups. I would personally always group my leading
chapters in an "introduction" part but the looser content model doesn't
hurt anything.

 Paul Prescod