[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
During this ongoing discussion, Paul Prescod and I each got an off-list note that requested keeping appendices out of the backmatter, because they are not backmatter. Are there any other opinions on this? So, that would remove <appendix> from the back matter, and change the bookmap model to: <!ELEMENT bookmap (title, bookmeta?, frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, appendix*, backmatter?, reltable* )> One side advantage I see to this is that it keeps all of your appendices together; you won't accidentally stick your index between Appendix C and Appendix D. Of course if anybody wants the other back matter before the appendices, they may see it as a disadvantage. Are there any other comments on this? If it's as easy as the others, we can probably go ahead with it, but if it is controversial I think we should keep it in the back matter as currently designed. Thanks- Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787 "Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@xmetal.com> wrote on 06/15/2006 01:19:42 PM: > I think that I read somewhere that the current model is intended to > support BOTH people who want to specify the order in the map AND people > who want to override those decisions in the stylesheet. I think that's > wise. > > I personally have no problem with colophon and booklists being optional > at both the front and the back. I'd rather restrict preface to the front > and appendix to the back. > > It doesn't matter to me whether appendices are within backmatter or just > before the backmatter in bookmap. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:28 AM > > To: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; 'JoAnn Hackos'; Paul Prescod > > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model > > > > To take a little step forward - the revised model, without getting in > to > > shared front or back matter items, would be this: > > <!ELEMENT bookmap (title?, bookmeta?, > > frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, backmatter?, > > reltable* )> > > > > <!ELEMENT frontmatter (booklists | draftintro | > > abstract | dedication | preface | topicref)*> > > > > <!ELEMENT backmatter (appendix | notices | > > specialnotices | amendments | colophon | > > topicref)*> > > > > <!ELEMENT part (topicmeta?, (chapter | topicref)*)> > > > > I'll just note here that the title is optional, just because it is in > the > > current implementation. Earlier emails implied it would be required. > > > > About placing items in both the front and the back - I'm not voicing a > > strong opinion on that either way (though some pretty clearly make > sense > > in > > only one spot, like preface in the front). The original idea was to > have > > some sort of style setting that controlled where the items went. For > > example, the index is in <booklists>, which is only in front matter; > > default processing would usually stick it at the end. A style setting > > could > > move it before the appendix, after it, or whatever. You know, that old > XML > > principal - I just have to say I want an index, and my build process > > controls where to put it. > > > > I'll note that allowing <booklists> in both spots was not possible > before > > the <backmatter> and <frontmatter> containers, which may be why it > never > > came up. There's no technical limitation on it once those are added. > > > > Robert D Anderson > > IBM Authoring Tools Development > > Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit > > (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787 > > > > "Esrig, Bruce (Bruce)" <esrig@lucent.com> wrote on 06/15/2006 09:57:48 > AM: > > > > > > What about the extra topicref for specialization? > > > > > > To second that, Lucent allows an overview topic in a part before > > thechapters. > > > > > > Regarding front matter and back matter, a flexible content model is > > better. > > > > > > Which items do we know are either front matter or back matter but > > > not both? For example, would the order of booklists in the book be > > > completely up to the processing, or is it under author control? > > > > > > Bruce > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: JoAnn Hackos [mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:53 AM > > > To: Paul Prescod; Robert D Anderson > > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model > > > > > > > > > I would support having colophon in both front and backmatter as > options. > > > Standards among publishers are variable around this. I would not > enforce > > > order in the backmatter either. > > > JTH > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul.prescod@xmetal.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:49 AM > > > To: Robert D Anderson > > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model > > > > > > Now that we're getting down to detail... > > > > > > > <!ELEMENT bookmap (title, bookmeta?, > > > > frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, backmatter?, > > > > colophon?, reltable* )> > > > > > > The current model has two ways of representing the title. I don't > > > totally understand that design but hope to within a few days. > > > > > > Can we move colophon into the backmatter? > > > > > > > <!ELEMENT frontmatter (booklists | draftintro | > > > > abstract | dedication | preface | topicref)*> > > > > > > Looks good. > > > > > > > <!ELEMENT backmatter (appendix*, notices? > > > > specialnotices*, amendments?, topicref* )> > > > > > > Is there a reason to enforce order and cardinality on the backmatter > but > > > not the frontmatter? > > > > > > > <!ELEMENT part (topicmeta?, chapter*)> > > > > > > What about the extra topicref for specialization? > > > > > > Paul Prescod > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]