[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Glossaries in bookmap
Thanks for your contribution! Bookmap has a "glossarylist" which is a child of the "booklists" element and the booklist element is part of the frontmatter and backmatter. This implies that the glossary will always be adjacent to other "book lists" like the index, trademark list or list of tables. Is this the case for your documents? > -----Original Message----- > From: Patricia.Gee-Best@Sun.COM [mailto:Patricia.Gee-Best@Sun.COM] > Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:45 PM > To: Robert D Anderson > Cc: Patricia.Gee-Best@Sun.COM; JoAnn Hackos; > dita@lists.oasis-open.org; Paul Prescod > Subject: Re: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model > > ... > > > 2. What about glossaries? Here at Sun we have a very large > glossary that we use, in addition to smaller, > product-specific glossaries. > > The glossary always appears at the back of the book, it's > titled "Glossary," and would be considered <backmatter>. > The glossary is > *not* an appendix. > > Any possibility of adding <glossary> to the <backmatter> > content model? > > <!ELEMENT backmatter (booklists | notices | glossary | > specialnotices | dedication | colophon | > amendments | topicref)*> > > > Regards, > > > Patricia Gee Best > Sun Microsystems, Inc. > Systems Group Tech Pubs Services > Authoring Environment Lead > Austin, Tx > > > > > > 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]