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 <>
08/15/2006 06:23 PM
To
Paul Prescod <>
cc
Michael
Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Chris Wong <>,
JoAnn Hackos <>,
"Grosso, Paul" <>,
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:]
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
