dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposed index range revisions (was Re: [dita] Are indextermranges backwards incompatible?)
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 13:25:03 -0400
I agree we should not be adding new
markup for a tool decision, although we should document the intended behavior
of the existing proposed elements.
indexterm generates an index entry (no
change from 1.0).
indexterms with matching start and end
attributes generate an index range (new functionality for 1.1).
What is the current criteria for establishing
a match between start and end attributes?
- referencing syntax: simple tokens,
or standard DITA references?
- valid scope: same document (eg same
physical file), same topic or map (eg same logical unit), same indexing
pool type (eg index in map matches any index in map), or same deliverable
(eg just has to match somewhere)?
Michael Priestley
IBM DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Grosso, Paul"
<pgrosso@ptc.com>
08/16/2006 01:03 PM
|
To
| <dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [dita] Proposed index range revisions
(was Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?) |
|
I'm opposed to adding markup to
the DITA spec that defines implementation behavior.
The DITA spec is supposed to define
markup semantics, not presentational results. That's what stylesheets and
other implementation-specific configuration should do. If you want to suggest
such options for the DITA toolkit, take it to the dita-ot-developer list,
but such things do not belong in the DITA standard.
paul
From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 2006 August 16 11:51
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dita] Proposed index range revisions (was Re: [dita]
Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?)
explicit: turns on range rendering for explicitly
ranged indexterms - those with corresponding start and end attributes
topic: turns on range rendering for topics indexed in their prolog, the
range being the page range of the topic itself, not including any subtopics
sequences: turns on the transformation of continuous page sequences into
page ranges
--Dana
Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) wrote:
It would help to have explicit
behavior statements for the three indicators: explicit, topic, sequences.
Bruce
From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:11 PM
To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [dita] Proposed index range revisions (was Re: [dita] Are
indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?)
Thanks for working up an initial proposal,
Paul. I also like the wording - and for suggesting the path towards an
inclusive compromise.
I've done some additional thinking overnight, however, and now offer a
more systematic approach to the issue.
Proposed changes to existing index range proposal:
1. Default
behavior to remain unchanged from 1.0. Even if you enter an explicit index
range with start and end attributes, it will still be rendered as a point
index reference to the start page by default.
2. Range
rendering in all identified cases to be turned on by a new optional element
contained by indexlist in the bookmap:
ranges (explicit?, topic?, sequences?)
Justifications:
1. Ensures
backwards compatibility with 1.0 during the time it takes to review all
indexterms in your document set and change them to ranges where appropriate
- a deliverable might come up while you're in the midst of the change,
which is likely to be back burner.
2. If
you don't employ index ranges and a partner does, allows you to easily
eliminate the ranges from partner doc in your output.
3. Allows
people migrating book-oriented legacy doc into DITA to bring page ranges
along initially, then leave them in but turn them off when the transition
to a topic-based, minimalist mode of presentation is accomplished (thanks
to lurker Scott Prentice for identifying this need).
4. Meets
JoAnn's most fundamental criterion: The
indexer should be solely responsible for determining when a range of pages
is used, not have some automatic decision made. This
gives everyone complete control over what ranges do or do not appear in
their index.
5. Locates
that control in the DTD, making it most easily accessible to writers.
--Dana
Tony Self wrote:
Your wording seems to entirely agreeable, Paul. My
only change would be to clarify what we mean by "end-user". In
this recent flurry of messages, some confusion may have been caused by
mid-identification of the stake-holders. To me, the people involved are
(broadly) the TC members, the tool vendors, the writers, and the readers.
By "end-user", I think you mean "writer" (the end-user
of the DITA publishing tool).
Tony Self
________________________________
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul.prescod@xmetal.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2006 10:17 AM
To: Dana Spradley; Michael Priestley
Cc: Chris Wong; dita@lists.oasis-open.org;
JoAnn Hackos; Grosso, Paul
Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
I propose the following wording:
"Index terms in prologs are neither ranges nor points. They are associated
with the whole topic. DITA publishing implementations are encouraged to
let the end-user choose whether to represent them as page ranges spanning
an entire topic or individual pages in an index. Another choice that publishing
implementations may wish to provide is whether to collapse multiple continguous
page references into a single page range."
________________________________
From: Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:05 PM
To: Michael Priestley
Cc: Chris Wong; dita@lists.oasis-open.org;
JoAnn Hackos; Paul Prescod; Grosso, Paul
Subject: Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
I think we're still working up to one Michael.
Do you have a suggestion for how the serious reservations I've expressed
with the current state of the proposal could not simply be suppressed,
but acknowledged and overcome?
The TC's process seems to have become very win/lose, IMHO - or maybe it
was always that way.
--Dana
Michael Priestley wrote:
Dana,
do you have a concrete proposal for a change to the DITA 1.1 specification?
Michael
Priestley
IBM
DITA Architect and Classification Schema PDT Lead
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Dana
Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>
<mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com>
08/15/2006
06:23 PM
To
Paul Prescod <paul.prescod@xmetal.com>
<mailto:paul.prescod@xmetal.com>
cc
Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Chris Wong <cwong@idiominc.com>
<mailto:cwong@idiominc.com>
, JoAnn Hackos <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>
<mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>
, "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
<mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com>
, dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject
Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
I
could agree to this compromise, provided the default behavior is as I've
outlined.
Then
we could do the right thing semantically in the default - but any particular
user organization could override it and behave as illogically as they like.
--Dana
Paul
Prescod wrote:
I
don't think we can mandate it, but we can submit the feature request. Given
that it is open source, it depends on someone to implement it. You or I
could just do it. I would be surprised if anyone would reject such a benign
patch (although the default behaviour might be controversial).
Can
we agree to this compromise rather than continuing with the argument?
________________________________
From:
Dana Spradley [mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com
<mailto:dana.spradley@oracle.com>
]
Sent:
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 12:44 PM
To:
Paul Prescod
Cc:
Chris Wong; JoAnn Hackos; Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
<mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject:
Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
And
I suppose the following switch as well:
*
generate-page-ranges-for-ranged-indexterms: Yes/no
I
agree that with such switches available, this issue would go away.
How
do we mandate that they be put in the official DITA toolkit?
--Dana
Paul
Prescod wrote:
The
fact that the distinction is "sometimes made" suggests to me
that this is another thing to put in the hands of the end user to express
however their tool expresses it. One can imagine options to the DITA toolkit
(or other publishing engine):
generate-page-ranges-for-index-entries-on-adjacent-pages:
Yes/no
generate-page-ranges-for-entire-topics:
Yes/no
________________________________
From:
Chris Wong [mailto:cwong@idiominc.com
<mailto:cwong@idiominc.com>
]
Sent:
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:04 AM
To:
JoAnn Hackos; Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
<mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject:
RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
"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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]