OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook message

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


Subject: RE: DOCBOOK: reasoning behind index terms


thanks for your input.  Further comments inline.
matthew l. avizinis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Lander [mailto:rlander@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 11:15 AM
> To: Matthew L. Avizinis; docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: DOCBOOK: reasoning behind index terms
>
>
> In the case of indexes, it seems to me that a more formal
> structure, such as the one that is currently implemented in
> docbook, is attractive. I know that the indexers here would
> certainly agree with that. Do you really want to go eight levels
> deep in an index? In addition, the use of unique elements allows
> for different content models, which might be needed given that
> indexers seem to think about each level somewhat differently. In
> short, I think that your co-workers are wrong. In the case of TOC
> and sections, recursive structures are the better way to go, IMHO.
2-->This seems to be getting at what I am after, but I don't quite know
what you mean by "different content models".
>
> The XSLT doesn't have to be any longer. Your template can match
> multiple elements, then calculate the level, or use a choose ...
2-->Yes, I showed this.  However, their argument for simpler code is based
on the assertion that "if" we wanted to add a fourth level then we'd have to
change the XSLT code with an explicit index naming scheme whereas the other
method might not require any change to the code at all.  My contention is
that even if that is true, the changes would be virtually trivial.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew L. Avizinis [mailto:mla@gleim.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 7:37 AM
> To: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: DOCBOOK: reasoning behind index terms
>
>
> Hello,
>   What is the reasoning behind using all the index, indexdiv,
> primary, secondary, indexentry, etc. terms? (Is there a link to a
> webpage that already addresses this issue perhaps?)  A debate at
> my office has one side supporting the docbook terminology and the
> other stating that <index>
>   <item>
>      <item>
>         <item>
>            etc.
>         </item>
>      </item>
>   </item>
> </index>
>
> would be simpler to use with XSLT, i.e. any code would be shorter
> and less repetitive.  I, for one, am in favor of the more
> descriptive approach used by docbook.  However, perhaps I do not
> able to state my reasons eloquently enough to convince them that
> it has more advantages than the above method. So, could someone
> describe a few reasons why DOCBOOK uses the terms it does for
> indexing and perhaps show some of the disadvantages of the above
> scheme. thanks for all help,
>    Matthew L. Avizinis <mailto:mla@gleim.com>
> Gleim Publications, Inc.
>    4201 NW 95th Blvd.
>  Gainesville, FL 32606
> (352)-375-0772
>       www.gleim.com <http://www.gleim.com>



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


Powered by eList eXpress LLC