I agree, Erik - which is why I'd like to see the
<keyword> definition changed in the draft spec to reflect one
single meaning - the meaning implied by the meaning of
<keywords>, and not a meaning that duplicates the meaning of
<kwd> - than two divergent ones.
After that, I also agree that a userful enhancement down the road would
be replacing <keywords> with something like <topicwords>
or, say, <semes> or <coverTerms> or
<conceptualBreadcrumbs> or <searchHooks> or
<topicHandles> or something, and including all metadata elements
that seek to encapsulate the overall gist of the topic into it, if they
aren't put inline in the body of the text instead.
I'm new to the TC, and hesitate to propose a replacement definition
myself.
Paul Prescod, do you feel like risking a definition in advance of
tomorrow's meeting? Your offer to try your hand did, after all, begin
this subthread.
--Dana
Erik Hennum wrote:
Hi, Dana, JoAnn, and Rob:
I'd like to submit some reservations about defining elements based on
the expected output instead of the content semantics:
- An HTML generator could legitimately choose to populate the
keyword metadata with semantic words that are delimited by <term>
and <keyword> elements within the text.
- A PDF generator could legitimately choose to display semantic
words associated with the topic as a whole in the page header.
- A specialization designer should be able to specialize an
element once to indicate a particular vocabulary (for instance,
<chemicalterm> or <programword>) regardless of whether an
instance of the vocabulary appears in the text or is associated with
the topic as a whole. That's possible only if the base element can
appear in both contexts. Here's an example:
<metadata>
<keywords>
<chemicalterm>molecule</chemicalterm>
<programword>element</programword>
</keywords>
</metadata>
...
<p>You list each <chemicalterm>atom</chemicalterm> in
the <programword>array</programword>....</p>
If anything, I'd suggest that the culprit in creating confusing
expectations might be the <keywords> element. A metadata
<topicwords> element that can contain <keyword>,
<term>, or <indexterm> might be better, but I
wouldn't expect serious consideration of that thought until after DITA
1.0
The need for enhancement never ends, and if we try to squeeze in this
one, I'm sure lots of others will come out of the woodwork (such as the
deferred <data> element).
Hoping that's useful,
Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com
Dana
Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>
erratum: "otherwise you're
sending mixed messages..."
In fact, it seems to me this whole discussion was provoked by a bad
definition for <keyword> in the language spec, which defined it
as a keyword in the technical programming sense, while from the
<keywords> definition you would have expected it to be defined as
in DocBook.
We could solve the entire issue by just revising that <keyword>
definition to be what <keywords> expects.
If people feel there is a need for keywords in the technical sense to
migrate beyond the confines of syntax diagrams, then that's a separate
issue for the folks working on the Programming Domain vis-a-vis the
<kwd> element - which *is* defined as a keyword in the technical
programming sense.
--Dana
Dana Spradley wrote:
I agree on the DocBook part, but
disagree on the <keyword>
in other contexts is more like a word from an API or language clause.
The <kwd> element exists for that.
<keyword> outside <keywords> should have the same meaning
it does within - outwise you're sending mixed messages to authors, and
mixing up the use.
JoAnn Hackos wrote:
Sounds like a good
solution.
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
http://www.comtech-serv.com
From: Rob Frankland [mailto:robf@rascalsoftware.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:29 AM
To: 'Paul Prescod'; JoAnn Hackos; 'Don
Day'
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
I agree, having followed
this thread. Your suggested solution covers both use cases. I believe
the largest number of users will want the HTML/Docbook usage and this
enables the programmer writers to meet their needs as well.
Rob
From:
Paul Prescod [mailto:paul.prescod@blastradius.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 5:46 PM
To: JoAnn Hackos; Don Day
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
Okay, an emerging
consensus seems to be that <keyword> in <keywords> means
<keyword> in the HTML/Docbook sense.
http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/keyword.html . It is typically hidden from the user
as metadata and embedded in the HTML meta tag.
<keyword> in other
contexts is more like a word from an API or language.
Should we just document it
that way? If so, I can suggest some wordings.
Paul Prescod
|