RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model

[Erik Hennum <ehennum@us.ibm.com>]

Hi, Paul and Robert:

Point well taken about <appendix> after <part> and now that you mention it, I think I recall some inquiries on the DITA user's group about bookmap from people who were creating parts and had trouble finding <appendix>.

Perhaps the designer of the original bookmap was working either from eccentric models or with insufficient coffee....


Thanks,


Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com


"Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@xmetal.com> wrote on 06/12/2006 06:09:28 PM:

> > 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.