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] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:01 AM
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
> Importance and ranges are orthogonal concepts.

I think that underlying this debate is a difference in styles by index
users. When I'm presented with many mentions of a particular topic,
there are three things that I look at:

 1. is any bolded as being the "defining" instance of an index entry?
(hard to do in topic-oriented content!)

 2. which comes first (also not necessarily informative in
topic-oriented content)

 3. which is longest: likely to be a tutorial and not just a random

So I understand Dana's point, but I don't (personally) think it is
crucial enough for substantial spec rewriting at this point. It is
totally true that if you have a Concept called "Cheese" then you would
want that topic to look special in the index entry for cheese. It is
also true that barring any special markup, making that mention into the
longest range is ONE way to make it stand out. Maybe we should agree for
DITA 1.2 to document other (more explicit) ways to make it stand out.

To put it another way: if a publishing tool provides the options I've
proposed then I would tend to advocate that they be set Dana's way
rather than the way others propose.

That said, I think it is acceptable to leave control of the issue in the
hands of the end-user rather than requiring it to be hard coded in the
spec. I thought that we were heading towards a compromise on those

 Paul Prescod

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