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] Proposed index range revisions (was Re: [dita] Are indextermranges backwards incompatible?)


I guess we could rephrase the markup as a second-order metacommentary on the meaning of various kinds of indexterms - all optional elements in indexlist:
indextermEnd (meaningful | meaningless)
topicalIndexterm (meaningful | meaningless)
sequentialIndexterms (meaningful | meaningless)

If indextermEnd is deemed meaningful, then start/end elements generate a range - otherwise they don't.

If topicialIndexterm is deemed meaningful, then indexterms in topic metadata generate a range - otherwise they don't.

If sequentialIndexterms are deemed meaningful, then they generate a range. Otherwise they're left as points.

Or however a particular site wishes to implement the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of these elements, as defined by the bookmap builder.

Everything worthy of dispute is a question of meaning in the end, after all.

--Dana

Dana Spradley wrote:
In fact, one could say the ability to deploy markup to build a book at all is not a semantic use of markup, but merely a structural one.

So neither of you supports using markup to build books?

Dana Spradley wrote:
Also I take it that both of you would like to see indexlist and all other -list elements removed from the bookmap?

Their sole purpose is to determine implementation-specific behavior as well.

--Dana

Dana Spradley wrote:
I think I'm suggesting that indexterms with matching start and end attributes do not generate an index range by default.

That would be backwards incompatible with existing 1.0 markup.

If you object to using markup to define implementation behavior, then you should leave this choice to the stylesheet or other implementation-specific configuration too.

Otherwise you are in fact using indexterm start/end markup to define a new implementation behavior already.

--Dana

Michael Priestley wrote:

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]