RE: [dita] some index-range-* issues

Dana,

You’re echoing my thoughts, reflected in this earlier memo.

Perhaps the additional confusion here is moving across topics. It would seem better to avoid cross-topic indexing ranges completely. Would that still be an option?

I think the current state of the proposals in both cases tries to accommodate poor indexing practices that ignore the usability of an index for actual readers. The simplest method is to give the page number only for the first page of a longer item, letting the reader decide when he has had enough. Some indexers use ff (folios or numbers of pages)to indicate a longer discussion, beginning on a page, such as 356ff with the ff in italic. There is something problematic, it seems, to have page ranges that span topics, given our case for the standalone nature of a topic.

Anyway -- just a few thoughts on the philosophy behind the technical debate.

JoAnn

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

From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:34 PM
To: Grosso, Paul
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] some index-range-* issues

Even after this morning's discussion, I like Paul's idea - although I personally wouldn't allow mixed content in index-term-start, but would wrap the top-level indexterm in an indexterm element.

On the other hand, what is an index range supposed to mean when you come across one in an index?

I always thought it meant that's where an extended discussion of that topic occurs in the book.

DITA being a topic-oriented architecture, it would seem more appropriate to put indexterms that apply to the entire topic somewhere in the metadata for that topic - and only construct index ranges for those.

--Dana

Grosso, Paul wrote:

I'm resending this email to the list since it never made it.

I have deleted some parts that are no longer at issue.

I hope to follow up with another email with another proposal.

Issues

======

The currently proposed index-range-* elements are just

empty "flags" that get put inside an indexterm element.

But it is not necessarily clear what this means in the

case of nested indexterms.

For example, per my best understanding, one way to indicate

a page range for my "pecorino" example would be markup such

as the following (where the comments just indicate what pages

each indexterm falls on):

. . .

<!-- page 22 -->

<indexterm>cheese

  <indexterm>sheeps milk cheeses

    <indexterm>pecorino<index-range-start/></indexterm>

  </indexterm>

</indexterm>

. . .

<!-- page 24 -->

<indexterm>cheese

  <indexterm>sheeps milk cheeses

    <indexterm>pecorino<index-range-end/></indexterm>

  </indexterm>

</indexterm>

. . .

But what if the <index-range-start/> is placed elsewhere

in the first indexterm, such as:

<!-- page 22 -->

<indexterm>cheese<index-range-start/>

  <indexterm>sheeps milk cheeses

    <indexterm>pecorino</indexterm>

  </indexterm>

</indexterm>

Is that equivalent, does it mean something else, or is it

an error?  (My best guess is that it should be equivalent.)

What about the following:

<indexterm>cheese<index-range-start/></indexterm>

. . .

<indexterm>cheese<index-range-end/>

  <indexterm>sheeps milk cheeses

  </indexterm>

</indexterm>

Since the first is an index reference for "cheese" and

the second is one for "cheese;sheeps milk cheeses", my

best guess is these two do not constitute a matched pair.

What about the following:

<indexterm>cheese<index-range-start/>

  <indexterm>sheeps milk cheeses<index-range-end/>

  </indexterm>

</indexterm>

. . .

<indexterm>cheese<index-range-end/>

  <indexterm>sheeps milk cheeses

  </indexterm>

</indexterm>

Is the first indexterm a range start or range end

(or just an error)?  If it is a range start, does

it end immediately, or is its range-end ignored,

and the range is ended by the subsequent indexterm?

None of this is made clear in the current writeup.

Also, I think this is very confusing and error-prone

for users.

Potential solution

==================

Rather than having empty index-range-* elements that

magically redefine their parent to have different

semantics, I think it would be preferable to have a

specialization of indexterm (or just another element)

that can be used to indicate the start of a range--so

we would write something like:

<index-range-start>cheese

  <indexterm>sheeps milk cheeses

    <indexterm>pecorino</indexterm>

  </indexterm>

</index-range-start>

to start the "cheese--sheeps milk cheeses--pecorino" range.

While in theory we could then have an analagous

index-range-end element with the identical nested

indexterm content, I think that is another mistake

in the current proposal.  The idea of creating

matching pairs by having to have identical content

has already been pointed out as a translation

nightmare, but when you start to consider nested

indexterms, it's an even worse error-prone mess,

both for the user and the implementors.

Instead, I would add an NMTOKEN attribute to both

index-range-start and index-range-end, and have

index-range-end be an empty element that just

refers back to the start:

<index-range-start subject="pecorino">cheese

  <indexterm>sheeps milk cheeses

    <indexterm>pecorino</indexterm>

  </indexterm>

</index-range-start>

. . .

<index-range-end subject="pecorino"/>

The "subject" attribute would act like a sort of

id/idref, but I've avoided really using IDs, because

then if you have two ranges that discuss "pecorino",

you couldn't reuse the id="pecorino".

paul

dita message