[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
Are there opinions on which of the front and back sections should *not*
appear in both? So far, both on and off the list, I've heard comments on
these:
preface should only be in front
abstract should only be in front
draftintro should only be in front
amendments should (probably) only be in back
If anybody disagrees with these, or would like to add to the "one place
only" list, now's the perfect time to speak up...
If nothing else changes, the bookmap content models will be updated as
follows. If there are other suggestions, I'll incorporate them and send out
another full list of changes before Tuesday's TC call, which can hopefully
result in a quick vote of approval.
<!ELEMENT bookmap (title?, bookmeta?,
frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, appendix*, backmatter?,
reltable* )>
<!ELEMENT frontmatter (booklists | notices |
specialnotices | dedication | colophon |
abstract | draftintro | preface | topicref*)
<!ELEMENT backmatter (booklists | notices |
specialnotices | dedication | colophon |
amendments | topicref)*>
<!ELEMENT part (topicmeta?, (chapter | topicref)*)>
Last - many thanks to Paul Prescod for inspiring this simplification, and
to others for reviewing...
Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787
"JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com> wrote on 06/16/2006 12:51:43
PM:
> I like the idea of removing Appendices from Backmatter.
> JTH
>
> JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
> President
> Comtech Services, Inc.
> 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
> Denver, CO 80215
> 303-232-7586
> joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
> joannhackos Skype
> www.comtech-serv.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:10 AM
> To: Paul Prescod
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
>
> During this ongoing discussion, Paul Prescod and I each got an off-list
> note that requested keeping appendices out of the backmatter, because
> they
> are not backmatter. Are there any other opinions on this? So, that would
> remove <appendix> from the back matter, and change the bookmap model to:
> <!ELEMENT bookmap (title, bookmeta?,
> frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, appendix*, backmatter?,
> reltable* )>
>
> One side advantage I see to this is that it keeps all of your appendices
> together; you won't accidentally stick your index between Appendix C and
> Appendix D. Of course if anybody wants the other back matter before the
> appendices, they may see it as a disadvantage. Are there any other
> comments
> on this? If it's as easy as the others, we can probably go ahead with
> it,
> but if it is controversial I think we should keep it in the back matter
> as
> currently designed.
>
> Thanks-
>
> Robert D Anderson
> IBM Authoring Tools Development
> Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787
>
> "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@xmetal.com> wrote on 06/15/2006 01:19:42
> PM:
>
> > I think that I read somewhere that the current model is intended to
> > support BOTH people who want to specify the order in the map AND
> people
> > who want to override those decisions in the stylesheet. I think that's
> > wise.
> >
> > I personally have no problem with colophon and booklists being
> optional
> > at both the front and the back. I'd rather restrict preface to the
> front
> > and appendix to the back.
> >
> > It doesn't matter to me whether appendices are within backmatter or
> just
> > before the backmatter in bookmap.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:28 AM
> > > To: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce)
> > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; 'JoAnn Hackos'; Paul Prescod
> > > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> > >
> > > To take a little step forward - the revised model, without getting
> in
> > to
> > > shared front or back matter items, would be this:
> > > <!ELEMENT bookmap (title?, bookmeta?,
> > > frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, backmatter?,
> > > reltable* )>
> > >
> > > <!ELEMENT frontmatter (booklists | draftintro |
> > > abstract | dedication | preface | topicref)*>
> > >
> > > <!ELEMENT backmatter (appendix | notices |
> > > specialnotices | amendments | colophon |
> > > topicref)*>
> > >
> > > <!ELEMENT part (topicmeta?, (chapter | topicref)*)>
> > >
> > > I'll just note here that the title is optional, just because it is
> in
> > the
> > > current implementation. Earlier emails implied it would be required.
> > >
> > > About placing items in both the front and the back - I'm not voicing
> a
> > > strong opinion on that either way (though some pretty clearly make
> > sense
> > > in
> > > only one spot, like preface in the front). The original idea was to
> > have
> > > some sort of style setting that controlled where the items went. For
> > > example, the index is in <booklists>, which is only in front matter;
> > > default processing would usually stick it at the end. A style
> setting
> > > could
> > > move it before the appendix, after it, or whatever. You know, that
> old
> > XML
> > > principal - I just have to say I want an index, and my build process
> > > controls where to put it.
> > >
> > > I'll note that allowing <booklists> in both spots was not possible
> > before
> > > the <backmatter> and <frontmatter> containers, which may be why it
> > never
> > > came up. There's no technical limitation on it once those are added.
> > >
> > > Robert D Anderson
> > > IBM Authoring Tools Development
> > > Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> > > (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787
> > >
> > > "Esrig, Bruce (Bruce)" <esrig@lucent.com> wrote on 06/15/2006
> 09:57:48
> > AM:
> > >
> > > > > What about the extra topicref for specialization?
> > > >
> > > > To second that, Lucent allows an overview topic in a part before
> > > thechapters.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding front matter and back matter, a flexible content model
> is
> > > better.
> > > >
> > > > Which items do we know are either front matter or back matter but
> > > > not both? For example, would the order of booklists in the book be
> > > > completely up to the processing, or is it under author control?
> > > >
> > > > Bruce
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: JoAnn Hackos [mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:53 AM
> > > > To: Paul Prescod; Robert D Anderson
> > > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would support having colophon in both front and backmatter as
> > options.
> > > > Standards among publishers are variable around this. I would not
> > enforce
> > > > order in the backmatter either.
> > > > JTH
> > > >
> > > > JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
> > > > President
> > > > Comtech Services, Inc.
> > > > 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
> > > > Denver, CO 80215
> > > > 303-232-7586
> > > > joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
> > > > joannhackos Skype
> > > > www.comtech-serv.com
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul.prescod@xmetal.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:49 AM
> > > > To: Robert D Anderson
> > > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> > > >
> > > > Now that we're getting down to detail...
> > > >
> > > > > <!ELEMENT bookmap (title, bookmeta?,
> > > > > frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, backmatter?,
> > > > > colophon?, reltable* )>
> > > >
> > > > The current model has two ways of representing the title. I don't
> > > > totally understand that design but hope to within a few days.
> > > >
> > > > Can we move colophon into the backmatter?
> > > >
> > > > > <!ELEMENT frontmatter (booklists | draftintro |
> > > > > abstract | dedication | preface | topicref)*>
> > > >
> > > > Looks good.
> > > >
> > > > > <!ELEMENT backmatter (appendix*, notices?
> > > > > specialnotices*, amendments?, topicref* )>
> > > >
> > > > Is there a reason to enforce order and cardinality on the
> backmatter
> > but
> > > > not the frontmatter?
> > > >
> > > > > <!ELEMENT part (topicmeta?, chapter*)>
> > > >
> > > > What about the extra topicref for specialization?
> > > >
> > > > Paul Prescod
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]