38 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.ditaRE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap cont...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Paul Prescod | Jun 12, 2006 2:28 pm | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 12, 2006 3:11 pm | |
| Erik Hennum | Jun 12, 2006 4:07 pm |  .gif, .gif, .gif, 7 more |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 12, 2006 6:09 pm | |
| Erik Hennum | Jun 13, 2006 8:10 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 14, 2006 12:13 pm | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 14, 2006 12:53 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 14, 2006 1:10 pm | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 15, 2006 7:16 am | |
| JoAnn Hackos | Jun 15, 2006 7:34 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 15, 2006 7:48 am | |
| JoAnn Hackos | Jun 15, 2006 7:52 am | |
| Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) | Jun 15, 2006 7:57 am | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 15, 2006 9:27 am | |
| Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) | Jun 15, 2006 9:39 am | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 15, 2006 9:43 am | |
| JoAnn Hackos | Jun 15, 2006 10:08 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 15, 2006 11:19 am | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 15, 2006 11:20 am | |
| JoAnn Hackos | Jun 15, 2006 11:22 am | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 16, 2006 7:09 am | |
| ma...@mekon.com | Jun 16, 2006 8:28 am | |
| JoAnn Hackos | Jun 16, 2006 10:51 am | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 16, 2006 6:13 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 16, 2006 6:24 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 19, 2006 9:56 am | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 19, 2006 10:12 am | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 19, 2006 11:26 am | |
| Esrig, Bruce (Bruce) | Jun 19, 2006 12:11 pm | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 19, 2006 12:20 pm | |
| Gershon L Joseph | Jun 26, 2006 7:48 am | |
| Grosso, Paul | Jun 26, 2006 8:51 am | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 26, 2006 3:04 pm | |
| Grosso, Paul | Jun 26, 2006 3:20 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 26, 2006 3:38 pm | |
| Robert D Anderson | Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm | |
| Paul Prescod | Jun 26, 2006 5:59 pm | |
| Grosso, Paul | Jun 27, 2006 7:06 am |
| Subject: | RE: [dita] Complexity of bookmap content model | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Robert D Anderson (roba...@us.ibm.com) | |
| Date: | Jun 26, 2006 3:04:37 pm | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.dita | |
Hi Paul - do you think it would be acceptable for that to be controlled in the transform? That is - I expect we will already have an IBM processing override that will put back matter sections into the order that meets our style. It could easily pull the appendix sections into the back matter, placing them before or after the other sections. In fact we will have to do that when converting to our SGML document type, because that requires appendix tags to appear inside the back matter.
I think the only thing this rules out is the ability to create Appendix A, followed by the glossary or index, followed by appendix B, but I do not think that would be too common.
Robert D Anderson IBM Authoring Tools Development Chief Architect, DITA Open Toolkit (507) 253-8787, T/L 553-8787
"Grosso, Paul" <pgro...@ptc.com> wrote on 06/26/2006 10:51:40 AM:
Sorry, but I was offline for the last 10 days.
I am in general in favor of the direction of this simplification of the bookmap content model.
However, I think appendix should be allowed in backmatter. I've certainly seen applications where appendices are considered part of the backmatter. For example, the standard CALS (US DOD) DTDs have:
<!ELEMENT rear ( appendix | glossary | index | errpt | foldsect)+ >
paul
-----Original Message----- From: Robert D Anderson [mailto:roba...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, 2006 June 16 09:10 To: Paul Prescod Cc: di...@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.