index-see proposed wording

["Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>]

Proposed additional wording for index-see.

In addition to my earlier email, I realized that
we need to cover the case of multiple index-see
elements for a single index entry.  I assumed it
might make sense to see "see Goldfish, see Carp",
so I decided that is not an error.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 September 26 11:37
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] review of index* elements 

> > 
> > index-see
> > ---------
> > The description doesn't make clear when a see becomes 
> > a see-also and vice versa or whether there are error 
> > cases and/or when we ignore one in favor of the other.
> 
> Proposed resolution:
> 
> It is an error if you have both an index-see as well 
> as an index-see-also or indexterm for the same index
> entry (technically, with an identical sort pattern).
> An implementation may (but need not) give an error 
> message, and may (but need not) recover by treating 
> the index-see as an index-see-also (in which case the
> page number where the index-see-also occurred will
> also appear in the index entry).

Add as the third and fourth para of the section:

Because an index-see indicates a redirection to use
instead of the current entry, it is an error if, for any
index-see, there is also an index-see-also or an indexterm 
for the same index entry (i.e., with an identical sort key).
An implementation may (but need not) give an error 
message, and may (but need not) recover from this error
condition by treating the index-see as an index-see-also.

It is not an error for there to be multiple index-see 
elements for a single index entry.