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] treating index-see as index-see-also


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2006 October 03 09:48
> To: Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
> 
> Spinning out the example further ...
> 
> Wouldn't the resulting index be somewhat unusable? If a user 
> looks under
> Carp, they wouldn't see a reference to Goldfish, but some of the index
> entries are under Goldfish.

I'm not sure I understand, but regardless, I don't
see what you're suggesting we should do with respect
to the DITA 1.1 spec.

Yes, it's possible for a user to use DITA's indexing
markup in such a way that the generated index is less
than ideal.

We still need to define in the spec what the semantics
are for all the possible markup combinations.

I'm happy to say that some combinations are errors--in
fact, that's exactly what I've done.  So what is it that
you're want to say differently than I've suggested?

paul

> 
> In case this sort of clash occurs, to keep the index semantically
> coherent, the reverse see-also should be generated as well.
> 
>     Carp, ... Lots of references ...
>       See also Goldfish <-- because an index-see to Carp was converted
> to an index-see-also
> 
>     Goldfish, 34
>       See also Carp
> 
> This is not the case for an index-see that is not converted 
> because the
> index-see could be from a deprecated term to an approved term.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:04 AM
> To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 October 03 08:54
> > To: Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
> > 
> > Do we have a set of scenarios in which it makes sense to treat an 
> > index-see as an index-see-also? I tried to construct one, and had 
> > difficulty.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> You've got an index-see for "Goldfish, see Carp" in a topic that is
> referenced in your bookmap, and you generate output including an index
> and all is well.
> 
> Then you decide to reference one more topic from your bookmap, but it
> happens to have an indexterm for "Goldfish".
> 
> So now you're generating an index where you have "Goldfish, 
> see Carp" as
> well as a page number due to the indexterm, but it is 
> incorrect to have
> a "See" and a page number.  If you instead treat the index-see as a
> see-also, you would get a valid index entry.
> 
> I don't quite understand the rest of your message.
> 
> paul
> 
> > 
> > The question has to do with the root cause for the clash. 
> Is the root 
> > cause a disagreement (or unintentional inconsistency) over 
> what term 
> > to use? Is it an erroneous use in one place compared with another?
> > 
> > A viable scenario should show a sequence of source materials being 
> > processed, an intended behavior implemented by processing, and the 
> > resulting output. There would need to be more than one scenario in 
> > order to show different ways that a clash could arise.
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > 
> > Bruce Esrig
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
> > Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 4:28 PM
> > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [dita] indexterm proposed wording
> > 
> > Proposed additional wording for indexterm.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 September 26 11:37
> > > To: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [dita] review of index* elements
> > 
> > > > indexterm
> > > > ---------
> > 
> > > Issue:  What if an an indexterm contains both an index-see and an 
> > > index-see-also.
> > > 
> > > Proposed resolution:
> > > 
> > > It is an error if an indexterm contains both an index-see and an 
> > > index-see-also.  An implementation may (but need
> > > not) give an error message, and may (but need not) recover
> > by treating
> > 
> > > the index-see as an index-see-also (in which case the page number 
> > > where the index-see-also occurred will also appear in the index 
> > > entry).
> > > 
> > > ACTION to Paul:  Provide suggested wording.
> > 
> > Add as the final para of the first section:
> > 
> > It is an error if an indexterm containing no indexterm children 
> > contains both an index-see and an index-see-also.  (Note:
> > index-see and index-see-also elements within indexterms that do 
> > contain indexterm children are ignored.)  In the case of this error 
> > condition, an implementation may (but need
> > not) give an error message, and may (but need not) recover 
> by treating
> 
> > all such index-see elements as index-see-also elements.
> > 
> 


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