I would not agree with the result
assumptions. What mechanism exists for the numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8 to be
concatenated into a range 5-8? A continuous discussion ranging over pages 5-8
does not mean the same as points referenced by the number 5, 6, 7, and 8. The
indexer should be solely responsible for determining when a range of pages is
used, not have some automatic decision made.
JoAnn
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech
Services, Inc.
710
Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver,
CO 80215
303-232-7586
joannhackos
Skype
www.comtech-serv.com
From: Grosso, Paul [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006
11:21 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm
ranges backwards incompatible?
I generally agree with Bruce here.
But I also need to take issue with:
new ranged indexterms they add would cause these old
point indexterms to be misinterpreted
With our existing indexterm markup, you
cannot distinguish between use of indexterms and ranges by looking at the
resulting index. An indexterm marks a point, and the page on which that
point falls will be included in the resulting index. An index range marks
a start and end point, and all pages starting with the one on which the start
point falls and ending with the one on which the end point falls will be
included in the resulting index.
Unless one has a fancier indexing process
whereby one can, say, request a bold page number in the index for the most
important reference and italic page numbers for pages on which there are
related figures, etc., there is no distinction among page numbers in the
resulting index.
Looking at the resulting index, one cannot
tell if index-page-range markup was used to create that index or not. A
resulting index entry of:
cheese 2, 5-8, 12
could have been generated by pointwise
indexterm markup throughout the source that just so happened to end up being
points on pages 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 12.
paul
From: Esrig,
Bruce (Bruce) [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, 2006 August 15
11:53
To: Dana Spradley
Cc:
Subject: RE: [dita] Are indexterm
ranges backwards incompatible?
On the other hand, Dana,
This logic could be applied to outlaw any
extension, since every user would have to review every document to determine
whether they had intended to use the extension.
With DITA 1.1, we clarify that an
indexterm designates a point at which to start reading about the indexed
subject. The DITA 1.1 conceit is that this was true all along. In DITA 1.0,
this aspect of the interpretation was unspecified because there was no way to
specify anything else. But if it even makes sense to take sides on this, it's
possible to argue that the default disambiguation is the DITA 1.1 way. Indexing
practice typically presumes that an index entry refers to a point at which to
start reading.
For those who wish to specify a range of
pages possibly not starting at the top of a topic, a new capability is
provided that permits such a specification. The specification of a range
generates a page range in outputs that have page numbers, such as PDF files. In
other outputs, it generates a reference to the start page only.
Best wishes,
Bruce
Esrig
From: Dana
Spradley [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006
12:41 PM
To:
Subject: [dita] Are indexterm
ranges backwards incompatible?
After this morning's meeting, I'm starting to think
that maybe ranged indexterm should be considered backwards incompatible with
DITA 1.0.
In 1.0, it is ambiguous whether indexterms point to discussions confined to a
single page, or to extended discussions that begin on a certain page.
Introducing ranged indexterms removes that ambiguity.
Users who want to make use of ranged indexterms would need to go back through
their entire document set and replace current point indexterms with ranged
indexterms where appropriate - otherwise any new ranged indexterms they add
would cause these old point indexterms to be misinterpreted.
Doesn't that amount to backwards incompatibility?
--Dana
