Title: RE: [dita] indexterm page ranges have come apart
It was inevitable that all issues be reopened because the
design did not address questions like what happens if index-see appears on a
primary index item with nested secondaries). We all resisted discussing elements
other than index-range until Bruce convinced us (correctly) that those issues
had to be addressed. Similarly, we have spent a lot of time discussing what
happens if you have conflicting sort-as because the answer wasn't in the
original design (it discussed "inconsistent" sort orders but not duplicated
entries). I don't see what choice we have in our process but to re-open a design
that isn't complete yet.
Unfortunately, we have a habit in the TC of hoping that
everyone else has thought through the specification carefully. When you combine
this with vacations which may take a stakeholder out of the loop, you end up
with the situation we are in now.
The range issue is similar. Paul Grosso started asking:
"What happens if you do X (where X is nesting, processing instruction, comment,
Unicode normalization)" and it became clear that the proposal had some
undiscussed issues. Going all of the way back to DITA 1.0: even for relatively
simple cases we lack a normalization algorithm that will answer the question of
whether the index items "a b" and "a b " and "a <!-...-> b" are the
same index entry. (this problem becomes much more acute when combined with the
DITA 1.1 features)
It's hard to know whether indexing is the only issue with
these problems or whether deeper poking around in other specs would turn up
similar ones. e.g. bookmap makes me nervous...how many people are confident with
the thoroughness of their review of bookmap?
I agree that we should not re-open the issue of whether
DITA will have ranges. We voted, we have no new information since the vote, no
new issues have arisen other than detailed implementation issues. Let's fix the
details and move on.
From: Chris Wong [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:49 PM
To: Dana
Spradley;
Subject: RE: [dita] indexterm
page ranges have come apart
Contrary to your subject title, it is not only the page ranges
issue that has "come apart". At this point in the subgroup's discussion, ALL
indexing proposals -- see/see also, sort order, page ranges -- are back on the
table. The old points of conflict are being revisited, and we are back to
square one, questioning every proposal.
Indexing is a contentious
issue. One of the original architects of DocBook once told me she was glad she
did not have my task: it was just too ugly. The existing indexing proposals
are a mix of hard-fought compromises that nobody involved was fully satisfied
with. Now that the issue is reopened, all hell has broken loose again. That's
natural for an issue with so many unsatisfied opinions.
It's probably
not so much one issue that has "come unglued", but perhaps this TC's process.
The votes to approve these proposals were unanimous. By contrast, we never
voted to reopen any of indexing issues -- let alone ALL of them -- and never
agreed on any kind of charter or limits. Yet right now, anything goes. That is
what bothers me: nothing is binding, anything can be reopened at any time by
anyone without a vote.
Some people here will be happy drop page ranges
from the standard. That's easy enough to suggest. But I'd point out that we
have not voted on that idea either.
Chris
-----Original
Message-----
From: Dana Spradley [mailto:]
Sent:
Thu 8/10/2006 1:09 PM
To:
Subject: [dita]
indexterm page ranges have come apart
I'm sorry, but it's been summer,
and I haven't been paying close enough
attention to the indexterm page
range debate that started to heat up
just before the 4th of
July.
I've now reviewed that debate, and I can understand Chris's
frustration:
this issue seems to have come seriously unglued.
Worse,
I find myself in disagreement with several TC consensuses that
were made in
mid July, I think in my absence - if not, then I was dozing.
While much
of the debate has been technical, for me it comes down to the
fundamental
issue of whether support for page-ranged indexterms is
compatible with two
fundamental principles of DITA:
* DITA is topic
based
* DITA encourages a minimalist approach to
documentation
Both of these principles speak against supporting
page-ranged indexterms
at all. Topics should be short (minimalism) and
independent
(topic-based). How far do you need to read from a point-based
indexterm,
except to the end of the topic? And if you're ready to try using
the
device/software before you reach the end of the topic - well, more
power
to you. You can always come back and read some more.
Chris's
references to the Chicago Manual of Style are symptomatic to me
of what's
wrong with this proposal. Its history is as a style guide for
writers of
academic books. Professors being longwinded and disorganized
- I should
know, I was one once - page ranges are appropriate in
their
indexes.
Like transitional text that would appear only in
book-length output,
which we earlier rejected, page-ranged indexterms are a
throwback to the
kind of books DITA was meant to move beyond.
I
propose we drop them from 1.1, and keep them out of DITA for as long
as we
can.
--Dana
