The wiki page http://wiki.oasis-open.org/dita/Indexing_issue_summary?action=show is again more up
to date.
The issues in this thread are mentioned, and the
resolved and obsolete issues have been moved to the bottom of the
page.
For the next revision ... In the wiki page, one way to
change the presentation of the three listed issues under "Issues that
concern" multiple elements would be to present them as three columns in a new
table, so that the resolutions and arguments can be
captured.
Bruce
From: Paul Prescod
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006
8:17 PM
To: Dana Spradley; Michael Priestley
Cc: Chris
Wong; ; JoAnn Hackos; Grosso, Paul
Subject:
RE: [dita] Are indexterm ranges backwards incompatible?
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
