[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
Since we have arguments both in favour of the view that appendices "are" backmatter and "are not", I would like to hear explanations of what difference it makes. No book that I have on my personal book shelf has a user-visible section called "back matter". Instead, there are appendices and then there are booklists like indices. Recall that we only added backmatter in order to simplify some content models. Nobody asked for it on processing or display grounds. Therefore it will presumably be essentially invisible to stylesheets and other processors. So I would suggest that the question should not be: "are appendices backmatter" and should instead be: "in what order do real-world authors need to put things like booklists, notices and appendices." My informal poll suggests that appendices nearly always precede booklists, colophons and other backmatter-ish items. Therefore I can't see how it matters whether they precede the backmatter element or precede the other elements WITHIN the backmatter element. If I am correct, then I would suggest we flip a coin, and put them in ONE place. Paul Prescod
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]