Okay, then I guess I am asking that we reconsider
this.
Perhaps the TC decided it - but does it really make any sense?
It means we're codifying a contradiction between the apparent meaning
of the markup and its actual meaning into the spec.
I for one would not like to go on record in support of that.
--Dana
Grosso, Paul wrote:
Re: Does anyone besides Michael disagree?
Yes, we discussed this at several earlier
points and agreed that
an indexterm within the prolog would be a
pointwise index reference
to the beginning of the topic.
I'd be the last one to say this means we
can't revisit this, but it's
certainly not just Michael espousing this
view. It is the TC's
status quo decision.
paul
Well I guess we do disagree, Michael.
As JoAnn's best practices document says (emphasis mine):
Insert
index entries that refer to entire topics in the prolog element
using the <keywords> tag
(<prolog><metadata><keywords><indexterm>”word(s)
to be included in the
index”</indexterm></keywords></metadata></prolog>).
In this case, it makes sense to make the
default a page range covering the entire topic, if ranges are employed
at all.
Does anyone besides Michael disagree?
I can't see how you could, if you respect the semantics of an indexterm
that is meant to apply to an entire topic: how could that be a point
reference, if ranges are allowed?
That's why I'm belaboring this point: I'm flabbergasted there could be
any principled support for the opposite position.
--Dana
Michael Priestley wrote:
I believe I understood your
point, I just disagree with it.
You're assuming that if a reader
introduces a range somewhere, they must generally want ranges, or at
least that's a good default assumption. I don't see that as a reliable
cue to authorial intent, since most indexes with ranges will still have
point indexing as well.
I would rather err on the side
of existing behavior both because I think it's right and because it's
easier to understand the change: we don't have indexterm behavior
changing radically depending on the presence or absence of other markup
in the processing scenario (eg including/excluding a single topic with
range markup would change the processing of the entire book).
Is there anyone else on the TC
who wants to change the default range behavior for indexterm? I'm
concerned that we may be spending a lot of time on a proposal with no
second, while there are a list of other issues to get through. Please
correct me if I'm wrong.
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Again, you misunderstand my point
Michael: the mere introduction of page ranges in an index where they
weren't allowed before changes the meaning of every single page
reference in that index.
Where before they could be pointing to extended discussions, now they
must be interpreted as pointing to brief mentions.
Thus using even a single ranged indexterm breaks backwards
compatibility for the writer that uses it.
Michael Priestley wrote:
Fair enough - not every writer, just every writer who makes use of an
index range somewhere in their deliverable, or has content reused by
someone else who makes use of an index range somewhere.
So:
- it breaks backwards compatibility for every context that uses index
ranges
- it breaks best practices for indexing
Can we call this an interesting idea but not appropriate for the spec
and move on to the next issue?
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
that's not correct, Michael - it only requires writers who wish to make
use of ranged indexterms elsewhere to rewrite their content
if they don't, no reworking is required
Michael Priestley wrote:
If we follow your suggestion then we're throwing a switch that requires
every writer currently using indexterms in prologs to rewrite their
content to preserve their existing behavior.
I think it makes the most sense both from a new user perspective (per
JoAnn's indexing best practice points) and from an existing user
perspective (per my backwards compatibility points) to say that
indexterms without ranges behave exactly the same way tomorrow as they
do today.
If a particular project wants the behavior you describe, they can write
their content that way (ie with index range elements), or override
processing to change the default behavior (ie get range outputs from
indexterm markup).
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
What if we look at this new feature as throwing a switch?
If a writer doesn't make use of it, and refrains from inserting even
one ranged indexterm into a book, then they get 1.0 pointwise
processing.
If, however, a user inserts even one ranged indexterm into a book, then
the ambiguity inherent in their legacy indexterms is resolved as
follows:
- indexterms that appear in the body of the
text are considered pointwise. If they aren't, then the writer needs to
insert new start attributes and end elements into the body of the text.
- indexterms that appear in topic metadata are
considered to apply to the topic as a whole, and as such generate a
page range in the index entry that corresponds to the page range of the
topic. If the writer doesn't like this, they need to go in and move the
offending indexterms to the most appropriate point in the body of the
text.
Dana
Chris Wong wrote:
"A distinction is sometimes made between continued discussion of a
subject (index, for example, 34-36) and individual references to the
subject on a series of pages (34, 35, 36). " -- 17.9, Chicago Manual of
Style
I'd say that the difference between a page range indexterm pair and a
series of individual indexterms would make that distinction. Never
assume that the page references should be combined.
I'd ask whether clarifying an ambiguity in the standard is
incompatible. If we strive to cater to every possible interpretation of
any ambiguity in the spec, we'd drive ourselves batty. I'm of the
opinion that our spec really says what the user can do and
makes no attempt at a comprehensive list of what a user cannot
do. The latter would need an inconveniently large truck to hold the
resulting document. So if a user writes DITA and expects processing
behavior that the standard does not expressively support, that user
should not expect that nonstandard behavior to be implemented by
everyone. Indeed, expecting an unpromised feature of DITA would easily
lead to interoperability problems even within a DITA version,
let alone across versions.
As I see it, this is probably not that big an issue because the XML
itself will continue to be valid, and the user can continue to use
legacy processing. Such XML cannot interoperate across DITA 1.0
implementations anyway.
Chris
From: JoAnn Hackos [mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:47 PM
To: Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
I would not agree with the result assumptions. What mechanism exists
for the numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8 to be concatenated into a range 5-8? A
continuous discussion ranging over pages 5-8 does not mean the same as
points referenced by the number 5, 6, 7, and 8. The indexer should be
solely responsible for determining when a range of pages is used, not
have some automatic decision made.
JoAnn
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
From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:21 AM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
I generally agree with Bruce here.
But I also need to take issue with:
new ranged indexterms they add would cause these old point indexterms
to be misinterpreted
With our existing indexterm markup, you cannot distinguish between use
of indexterms and ranges by looking at the resulting index. An
indexterm marks a point, and the page on which that point falls will be
included in the resulting index. An index range marks a start and end
point, and all pages starting with the one on which the start point
falls and ending with the one on which the end point falls will be
included in the resulting index.
Unless one has a fancier indexing process whereby one can, say, request
a bold page number in the index for the most important reference and
italic page numbers for pages on which there are related figures, etc.,
there is no distinction among page numbers in the resulting index.
Looking at the resulting index, one cannot tell if index-page-range
markup was used to create that index or not. A resulting index entry of:
cheese 2, 5-8, 12
could have been generated by pointwise indexterm markup throughout the
source that just so happened to end up being points on pages 2, 5, 6,
7, 8, and 12.
paul
From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2006 August 15 11:53
To: Dana Spradley
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
On the other hand, Dana,
This logic could be applied to outlaw any extension, since every user
would have to review every document to determine whether they had
intended to use the extension.
With DITA 1.1, we clarify that an indexterm designates a point at which
to start reading about the indexed subject. The DITA 1.1 conceit is
that this was true all along. In DITA 1.0, this aspect of the
interpretation was unspecified because there was no way to specify
anything else. But if it even makes sense to take sides on this, it's
possible to argue that the default disambiguation is the DITA 1.1 way.
Indexing practice typically presumes that an index entry refers to a
point at which to start reading.
For those who wish to specify a range of pages possibly not starting at
the top of a topic, a new capability is provided that permits such a
specification. The specification of a range generates a page range in
outputs that have page numbers, such as PDF files. In other outputs, it
generates a reference to the start page only.
Best wishes,
Bruce Esrig
From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:41 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
After this morning's meeting, I'm starting to think that maybe ranged
indexterm should be considered backwards incompatible with DITA 1.0.
In 1.0, it is ambiguous whether indexterms point to discussions
confined to a single page, or to extended discussions that begin on a
certain page.
Introducing ranged indexterms removes that ambiguity.
Users who want to make use of ranged indexterms would need to go back
through their entire document set and replace current point indexterms
with ranged indexterms where appropriate - otherwise any new ranged
indexterms they add would cause these old point indexterms to be
misinterpreted.
Doesn't that amount to backwards incompatibility?
--Dana
|