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:]
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
