RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model

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

Sorry, but I was offline for the last 10 days.

I am in general in favor of the direction of
this simplification of the bookmap content model.

However, I think appendix should be allowed in backmatter.
I've certainly seen applications where appendices
are considered part of the backmatter.  For example,
the standard CALS (US DOD) DTDs have:

<!ELEMENT rear ( appendix | glossary | index | errpt | foldsect)+ >
 
paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Friday, 2006 June 16 09:10
> To: Paul Prescod
> Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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.
>