[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
I disagree with Paul, and agree with Tony and JoAnn. I think sophisticated index readers generally take a page range to indicate a extended, and hence important, discussion of a topic. I know all my friends in graduate school did, and used this information to speed their research. I suppose there are always exceptions, however. As with all indexical signs, the significance is not explicit, but only implied. Here, you just the weight of a discussion by the size of the wake it leaves. --Dana Grosso, Paul wrote: -----Original Message----- From: JoAnn Hackos [mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com] Sent: Wednesday, 2006 August 16 09:26 To: Grosso, Paul Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible? Paul, If you look at the major style guides and Nancy Mulvany's critical text, Indexing Books, you'll find that professional indexers always point to ranges as reflecting an important and extended discussion of a subject and that a series of point page references does not convey the same information, but points to individual mentions of a topic. Ranges are not designed to make the index easier to read but to convey a level of importance about the subject matter. As a reader of indexes, I also assume the same level of importance of a range of pages. That's where I tend to look first, unless the index uses bold (another convention in print) to indicate a key page on the subject. Many indexes, of course, do both.JoAnn, Thanks for that information. Unfortunately, we probably have about the same number of years of experience in composition and working with customers and reading major style guides on the issue, and I have lots of experience to support my view too from both the creation and consumption side of indexes. Furthermore, ranges and importance are by definition orthogonal concepts, and while it may be reasonable in some cases to reflect the semantic of importance via the presentation of ranges, there is no inherently required connection. Where there is no inherently required connection, it is best to leave the user free to decide for themselves how best to reflect a given semantic in their presentation. So I would continue to argue that DITA should not make a hardwired connection between the importance and ranges. paul |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]