Let me ask this again in a few ways.

1. Do current bookmap users see this content model as complex?

2. If not, how do you manage the complexity in your head? How do you remember what elements can go in what places?

3. Is there anyone out there who would argue against simplifying the model on a technical or usability basis?

4. Is there anyone who would argue against simplifying it on a procedural basis ("too late. Will slow us down?")

5. What do people think about the particular simplification proposal at the bottom? Putting aside issues of title, the main ideas are

* group front-matter and backmatter into their own (topichead-like) elements.

* to group the portion of the tree designed for creating relationships but not generating the table of contents (to help make the TOC predictable)

=====

Note the sort of document that the current model can generate:

<bookmap>

<title></title> <part><appendix></appendix><appendix></appendix></part> <part><chapter></chapter><chapter></chapter></part> <colophon/> <topicref></topicref> <topicref></topicref> <topichead></topichead></bookmap>

* Chapters after appendices. * Topicrefs after colophon. * Topicheads after the colophon

What should a TOC generator do with a topicref after the appendices and colophon are done?

Are the appendices within parts before chapters meant to be gathered for the end of the book or published in-place in the middle of the document?