hmm ... another try ...
<!-- in-place declaration -->
<indexterm id="my-id"
start-loc="my-id">
...
<indexterm end="my-id">
<!-- remote declaration -->
<indexterm start-loc="my-id"
end-loc="other-id">
<p id="my-id"> <!-- range starts at the beginning
-->
...
<p id="other-id"> <!-- range ends at the end
-->
Bruce
From: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce)
Sent:
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 1:40 PM
To: 'Michael Priestley'; Grosso,
Paul
Cc:
Subject: RE: [dita]
Proposed index range revisions (was Re: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards
incompatible?)
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
