RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:18 PM
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> 
> ...
> 
> A lot of the arguments for how we are structuring the rest of 
> the front and back matter in this thread had to do with how 
> customers do things, and I'm saying customers want to put 
> appendices in back matter.

But I think that Robert is saying that _during output_ you can put the
appendices in the back matter. It is only really necessary to put them
in the back content model if we want the user to have precise control
over where appendices occur relative to other back matter items (like
booklists, notices, colophon and amendments).

If the author needs control then we should put it in the content model.
If it is just a matter of putting the appendices and other stuff into a
special back matter section for output purposes, then it should be done
in a stylesheet.

We SHOULD put it in both places if different people really need
different structures for output or processing reasons. We SHOULD NOT put
it in two places if we are really just debating the meaning of the
phrase "back matter". Some people seem to classify appendices as back
matter and others do not. If their output and other processes end up
looking the same then the definitional issue is not key.

 Paul Prescod