dita — archive
RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->dita message
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
- From: Michael Priestley <[email protected]>
- To: "Paul Prescod" <[email protected]>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 10:14:21 -0500
I don't think the current examples are necessarily wrong. The keyword element is not intended just for programming keywords, especially when semantic specializations of keyword are available such as <apiname>. Given that <keyword> has very little semantics of its own, and given that specializations of it exist for many specific cases, coming up with a generic example that isn't more suited for a specialization is actually pretty hard. Generic search terms from the text do seem reasonable to me, as an example of when to use <keyword> specifically rather than one of its specializations.
Michael Priestley
[email protected]
Dept PRG IBM Canada phone: 416-915-8262
Toronto Information Development
| "Paul Prescod"
<[email protected]>
03/08/2005 08:02 AM |
|
Thank you. Your description clarifies things. This is what I would have thought except were it not for the example in the specification under "keywords".
The following example is metadata from an installation task:
<prolog><keywords> <keyword>installing</keyword> <keyword>uninstalling</keyword> <keyword>prerequisites</keyword> <keyword>helps</keyword> <keyword>wizards</keyword> </keywords> </prolog>
I would have understood if the example was:
<prolog><keywords> <keyword>class</keyword> <keyword>if</keyword> <keyword>else</keyword> <keyword>elseif</keyword> <keyword>assert</keyword> </keywords> </prolog>
Those are keywords in the sense that you define it in your
email.
From: Michael Priestley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Mon 3/7/2005 7:32 PM
To: Paul Prescod
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [dita] Keywords in DITA
Hi Paul, welcome to the list.
The reason we support keyword in both locations (as well as a bunch of specializations of keywords) is to allow the same range of semantic specificity in both places. For example, <apiname> is a type (specialization) of keyword. If we have an occurrence of an <apiname> in content, we may also want to index it specifically for search, if the occurrence is significant. So we add it to the keyword list for the topic. But just because it is a keyword for the topic doesn't mean it stops being an <apiname>. In both contexts, being able to distinguish <apiname>blue</apiname> from <wintitlel>blue</wintitle> is worthwhile. So we support the same keyword element in both places.
In other words, <apiname> as content and <apiname> as keyword for search are both still <apiname>s, so it doesn't make sense to have a different set of elements just because they are processed differently: their containment context (body or prolog) is enough, and allows us to infer processing behavior without undermining the common semantics.
Michael Priestley
[email protected]
- References:
- RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
- From: "Paul Prescod" <[email protected]>
- RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]