RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model

[Robert D Anderson <robander@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Paul - do you think it would be acceptable for that to be controlled in
the transform? That is - I expect we will already have an IBM processing
override that will put back matter sections into the order that meets our
style. It could easily pull the appendix sections into the back matter,
placing them before or after the other sections. In fact we will have to do
that when converting to our SGML document type, because that requires
appendix tags to appear inside the back matter.

I think the only thing this rules out is the ability to create Appendix A,
followed by the glossary or index, followed by appendix B, but I do not
think that would be too common.

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787

"Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote on 06/26/2006 10:51:40 AM:

> Sorry, but I was offline for the last 10 days.
>
> I am in general in favor of the direction of
> this simplification of the bookmap content model.
>
> However, I think appendix should be allowed in backmatter.
> I've certainly seen applications where appendices
> are considered part of the backmatter.  For example,
> the standard CALS (US DOD) DTDs have:
>
> <!ELEMENT rear ( appendix | glossary | index | errpt | foldsect)+ >
>
> paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Friday, 2006 June 16 09:10
> > 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.
> >