[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also
You are suggesting that there are cases when there could be "logically missing" index-see-also's, but couldn't this be the case in general? Also, one person's "logically missing" might be another person's indexing strategy. Why should we try to fix up a "logically missing" index-see-also in the case of an error when we don't try to fix it up other cases? I hesitate to add more "magic fixup" beyond something simple like "treat index-see as index-see-also". You run a risk that what one person thinks is helpful turns out to be problematic for another. paul > -----Original Message----- > From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:esrig@lucent.com] > Sent: Tuesday, 2006 October 03 09:59 > To: Grosso, Paul; dita@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [dita] treating index-see as index-see-also > > It is an error if both an index-see and an index-see-also > occur for the > same indexterm. In case this condition occurs, 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. As part > of recovery the implementation may (but need not) add a corresponding > index-see-also from the target indexterm of the former index-see entry > to the indexterm containing the former index-see entry. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:pgrosso@ptc.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:53 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 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]