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:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006
12:44 PM
To: Paul Prescod
Cc: Chris Wong; JoAnn Hackos;
Grosso, Paul;
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:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 11:04 AM
To: JoAnn
Hackos; Grosso, Paul;
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
