OK, a principled thought about scope ... perhaps range
start and range end should both be references to IDs.
In that case, our <indexterm start=""> is a (possibly
supported) abbreviation for <indexterm id="my-id"
start="my-id">.
Bruce
From: Michael Priestley
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:25
PM
To: Grosso, Paul
Cc:
Subject: RE: [dita] Proposed index range
revisions (was Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards
incompatible?)
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
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
"Grosso, Paul"
<>
08/16/2006 01:03 PM
To
<>
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:]
Sent: Wednesday, 2006 August 16
11:51
To:
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:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:11 PM
To:
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:]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2006 10:17 AM
To: Dana Spradley; Michael
Priestley
Cc: Chris Wong; ;
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:]
Sent:
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:05 PM
To: Michael Priestley
Cc: Chris Wong; ;
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
http://dita.xml.org/blog/25
Dana Spradley
<> <mailto:>
08/15/2006 06:23
PM
To
Paul
Prescod <>
<mailto:>
cc
Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
Chris Wong <> <mailto:> , JoAnn Hackos <> <mailto:> , "Grosso, Paul" <>
<mailto:>
,
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:
<mailto:> ]
Sent: Tuesday, August
15, 2006 12:44 PM
To: Paul
Prescod
Cc: Chris Wong; JoAnn
Hackos; Grosso, Paul;
<mailto:>
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:
<mailto:> ]
Sent: Tuesday, August
15, 2006 11:04 AM
To: JoAnn
Hackos; Grosso, Paul;
<mailto:>
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
