[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
Hi, Paul and Robert:
Point well taken about <appendix> after <part> and now that you mention it, I think I recall some inquiries on the DITA user's group about bookmap from people who were creating parts and had trouble finding <appendix>.
Perhaps the designer of the original bookmap was working either from eccentric models or with insufficient coffee....
"Paul Prescod" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 06/12/2006 06:09:28 PM:
> > From: Erik Hennum [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Subject: Re: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> > ...
> > As I recall, the rationale for the chapter / appendix / part aspects
> > the bookmap model was that:
> > * An unpartitioned book should be able to have chapters followed
> > appendices
> Sounds good!
> > * A partitioned book should be able to have chapters prior to the
> > first part (in effect, providing an implicit first part without an
> > explicit container) but must put appendices within a part
> I don't understand why appendices should go in a part. That's not how it
> works in the books on my bookshelf (including my own!).
> I also don't remember seeing a book WITH a part that has its own
> appendix, notices, amendments, etc.