OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model


I like the idea of removing Appendices from Backmatter.
JTH

JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80215
303-232-7586
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
joannhackos Skype
www.comtech-serv.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:10 AM
To: Paul Prescod
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model

During this ongoing discussion, Paul Prescod and I each got an off-list
note that requested keeping appendices out of the backmatter, because
they
are not backmatter. Are there any other opinions on this? So, that would
remove <appendix> from the back matter, and change the bookmap model to:
<!ELEMENT bookmap (title, bookmeta?,
       frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, appendix*, backmatter?,
       reltable* )>

One side advantage I see to this is that it keeps all of your appendices
together; you won't accidentally stick your index between Appendix C and
Appendix D. Of course if anybody wants the other back matter before the
appendices, they may see it as a disadvantage. Are there any other
comments
on this? If it's as easy as the others, we can probably go ahead with
it,
but if it is controversial I think we should keep it in the back matter
as
currently designed.

Thanks-

Robert D Anderson
IBM Authoring Tools Development
Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
(507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787

"Paul Prescod" <paul.prescod@xmetal.com> wrote on 06/15/2006 01:19:42
PM:

> I think that I read somewhere that the current model is intended to
> support BOTH people who want to specify the order in the map AND
people
> who want to override those decisions in the stylesheet. I think that's
> wise.
>
> I personally have no problem with colophon and booklists being
optional
> at both the front and the back. I'd rather restrict preface to the
front
> and appendix to the back.
>
> It doesn't matter to me whether appendices are within backmatter or
just
> before the backmatter in bookmap.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:robander@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:28 AM
> > To: Esrig, Bruce (Bruce)
> > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org; 'JoAnn Hackos'; Paul Prescod
> > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> >
> > To take a little step forward - the revised model, without getting
in
> to
> > shared front or back matter items, would be this:
> > <!ELEMENT bookmap (title?, bookmeta?,
> >       frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, backmatter?,
> >       reltable* )>
> >
> > <!ELEMENT frontmatter (booklists | draftintro |
> >        abstract | dedication | preface | topicref)*>
> >
> > <!ELEMENT backmatter (appendix | notices |
> >        specialnotices | amendments | colophon |
> >        topicref)*>
> >
> > <!ELEMENT part (topicmeta?, (chapter | topicref)*)>
> >
> > I'll just note here that the title is optional, just because it is
in
> the
> > current implementation. Earlier emails implied it would be required.
> >
> > About placing items in both the front and the back - I'm not voicing
a
> > strong opinion on that either way (though some pretty clearly make
> sense
> > in
> > only one spot, like preface in the front). The original idea was to
> have
> > some sort of style setting that controlled where the items went. For
> > example, the index is in <booklists>, which is only in front matter;
> > default processing would usually stick it at the end. A style
setting
> > could
> > move it before the appendix, after it, or whatever. You know, that
old
> XML
> > principal - I just have to say I want an index, and my build process
> > controls where to put it.
> >
> > I'll note that allowing <booklists> in both spots was not possible
> before
> > the <backmatter> and <frontmatter> containers, which may be why it
> never
> > came up. There's no technical limitation on it once those are added.
> >
> > Robert D Anderson
> > IBM Authoring Tools Development
> > Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit
> > (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787
> >
> > "Esrig, Bruce (Bruce)" <esrig@lucent.com> wrote on 06/15/2006
09:57:48
> AM:
> >
> > > > What about the extra topicref for specialization?
> > >
> > > To second that, Lucent allows an overview topic in a part before
> > thechapters.
> > >
> > > Regarding front matter and back matter, a flexible content model
is
> > better.
> > >
> > > Which items do we know are either front matter or back matter but
> > > not both? For example, would the order of booklists in the book be
> > > completely up to the processing, or is it under author control?
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: JoAnn Hackos [mailto:joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:53 AM
> > > To: Paul Prescod; Robert D Anderson
> > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> > >
> > >
> > > I would support having colophon in both front and backmatter as
> options.
> > > Standards among publishers are variable around this. I would not
> enforce
> > > order in the backmatter either.
> > > JTH
> > >
> > > JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
> > > President
> > > Comtech Services, Inc.
> > > 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
> > > Denver, CO 80215
> > > 303-232-7586
> > > joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
> > > joannhackos Skype
> > > www.comtech-serv.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul.prescod@xmetal.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:49 AM
> > > To: Robert D Anderson
> > > Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model
> > >
> > > Now that we're getting down to detail...
> > >
> > > > <!ELEMENT bookmap (title, bookmeta?,
> > > >       frontmatter?, chapter*, part*, backmatter?,
> > > >       colophon?, reltable* )>
> > >
> > > The current model has two ways of representing the title. I don't
> > > totally understand that design but hope to within a few days.
> > >
> > > Can we move colophon into the backmatter?
> > >
> > > > <!ELEMENT frontmatter (booklists | draftintro |
> > > >        abstract | dedication | preface | topicref)*>
> > >
> > > Looks good.
> > >
> > > > <!ELEMENT backmatter (appendix*, notices?
> > > >        specialnotices*, amendments?, topicref* )>
> > >
> > > Is there a reason to enforce order and cardinality on the
backmatter
> but
> > > not the frontmatter?
> > >
> > > > <!ELEMENT part (topicmeta?, chapter*)>
> > >
> > > What about the extra topicref for specialization?
> > >
> > >  Paul Prescod
> > >
> > >
> > >
>





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200606/msg00062.html
lists.oasis-open.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-21
13345
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:FX562R3FCYQGSGHF4VJISQATG5DXJVNJ
<urn:uuid:08753e19-fdb4-4330-8339-057783dd5351>
2022-05-23T23:32:12Z
34.233.166.49
text/html
sha1:D52AGOJMRGWB2UVWOIDRLRCLUZYXCCWV
<urn:uuid:549d9358-6ec0-406b-8568-873f18af1eda>
https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita/200606/msg00062.html
response
<urn:uuid:933d0bd1-36ea-4a82-a1fd-89b4754dbf4c>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-36
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/