OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [dita] indexterm page ranges have come apart

I'm sorry, Chris - I didn't realize that in the subgroup all the proposals had come apart so much.

As for indexterm ranges, I'd be willing to let them stay in 1.1, despite my principled reservations against them - provided we construct ranges for point indexterms placed where they apply to an entire topic.

It's inconsistent to have ranges for partial topics - but not entire topics.


Chris Wong wrote:
RE: [dita] indexterm page ranges have come apart
I don't have a problem with filling in gaps in the approved proposals. What I am uncomfortable about is that we are also reopening and possibly reversing major architectural decisions made along the way.
  • The question of whether see/see also elements should have textual content or an explicit linking/href scheme was a fairly long-winded fight that settled on the former. Our last discussion has reopened the question again, with the same arguments being traded. This is not new.
  • The question of what to do with index-sort-as expressions that differ was also discussed long ago, and the compromise was to have universal sort ordering set at the map level and individual sort ordering at the topic level. So the issue of "conflicting" sort-as elements is nothing new (sort orders cannot be "inconsistent" unless they duplicate the entry). This question too has been reopened.
  • The question of whether to use linking vs textual content for page range start/end was also discussed and settled before. Again, this is not a new question. Again, the old arguments (precision of reference vs ease of use) are being traded.
So that is what I meant by everything being reopened. Again, I am happy with discussions that clarify gaps in the proposals. What I am not quite happy about is that this is not all we are doing.

From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul.prescod@xmetal.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 2:58 PM
To: Chris Wong; Dana Spradley; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] indexterm page ranges have come apart

It was inevitable that all issues be reopened because the design did not address questions like what happens if index-see appears on a primary index item with nested secondaries). We all resisted discussing elements other than index-range until Bruce convinced us (correctly) that those issues had to be addressed. Similarly, we have spent a lot of time discussing what happens if you have conflicting sort-as because the answer wasn't in the original design (it discussed "inconsistent" sort orders but not duplicated entries). I don't see what choice we have in our process but to re-open a design that isn't complete yet.
Unfortunately, we have a habit in the TC of hoping that everyone else has thought through the specification carefully. When you combine this with vacations which may take a stakeholder out of the loop, you end up with the situation we are in now.
The range issue is similar. Paul Grosso started asking: "What happens if you do X (where X is nesting, processing instruction, comment, Unicode normalization)" and it became clear that the proposal had some undiscussed issues. Going all of the way back to DITA 1.0: even for relatively simple cases we lack a normalization algorithm that will answer the question of whether the index items "a b" and "a  b " and "a <!-...-> b" are the same index entry. (this problem becomes much more acute when combined with the DITA 1.1 features)
It's hard to know whether indexing is the only issue with these problems or whether deeper poking around in other specs would turn up similar ones. e.g. bookmap makes me nervous...how many people are confident with the thoroughness of their review of bookmap?
I agree that we should not re-open the issue of whether DITA will have ranges. We voted, we have no new information since the vote, no new issues have arisen other than detailed implementation issues. Let's fix the details and move on.

From: Chris Wong [mailto:cwong@idiominc.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:49 PM
To: Dana Spradley; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] indexterm page ranges have come apart

Contrary to your subject title, it is not only the page ranges issue that has "come apart". At this point in the subgroup's discussion, ALL indexing proposals -- see/see also, sort order, page ranges -- are back on the table. The old points of conflict are being revisited, and we are back to square one, questioning every proposal.

Indexing is a contentious issue. One of the original architects of DocBook once told me she was glad she did not have my task: it was just too ugly. The existing indexing proposals are a mix of hard-fought compromises that nobody involved was fully satisfied with. Now that the issue is reopened, all hell has broken loose again. That's natural for an issue with so many unsatisfied opinions.

It's probably not so much one issue that has "come unglued", but perhaps this TC's process. The votes to approve these proposals were unanimous. By contrast, we never voted to reopen any of indexing issues -- let alone ALL of them -- and never agreed on any kind of charter or limits. Yet right now, anything goes. That is what bothers me: nothing is binding, anything can be reopened at any time by anyone without a vote.

Some people here will be happy drop page ranges from the standard. That's easy enough to suggest. But I'd point out that we have not voted on that idea either.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Thu 8/10/2006 1:09 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] indexterm page ranges have come apart

I'm sorry, but it's been summer, and I haven't been paying close enough
attention to the indexterm page range debate that started to heat up
just before the 4th of July.

I've now reviewed that debate, and I can understand Chris's frustration:
this issue seems to have come seriously unglued.

Worse, I find myself in disagreement with several TC consensuses that
were made in mid July, I think in my absence - if not, then I was dozing.

While much of the debate has been technical, for me it comes down to the
fundamental issue of whether support for page-ranged indexterms is
compatible with two fundamental principles of DITA:

    * DITA is topic based
    * DITA encourages a minimalist approach to documentation

Both of these principles speak against supporting page-ranged indexterms
at all. Topics should be short (minimalism) and independent
(topic-based). How far do you need to read from a point-based indexterm,
except to the end of the topic? And if you're ready to try using the
device/software before you reach the end of the topic - well, more power
to you. You can always come back and read some more.

Chris's references to the Chicago Manual of Style are symptomatic to me
of what's wrong with this proposal. Its history is as a style guide for
writers of academic books. Professors being longwinded and disorganized
- I should know, I was one once - page ranges are appropriate in their

Like transitional text that would appear only in book-length output,
which we earlier rejected, page-ranged indexterms are a throwback to the
kind of books DITA was meant to move beyond.

I propose we drop them from 1.1, and keep them out of DITA for as long
as we can.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]