OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only

  • 1.  Comment on the range of indexterm written in topic/prolog/metadata

    Posted 07-27-2010 17:00 
    For reference, the comment is at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201007/msg00010.html
and a direct pointer to the relevant text in the spec is
http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/cd03/spec/langref/indexterm.html

I reread that part of the spec and the comment, and I cannot
figure it out.  I realize I never really understood Michael's
text on this business about range indexterms in prologs.

So I have to back out of my offer to review this comment
since if I had to review it, all I could say is that I
also don't understand the spec in this regard.

paul


  • 2.  Re: [dita] Comment on the range of indexterm written in topic/prolog/metadata

    Posted 07-27-2010 17:14 
    Thanks, Paul--duly updated.
--
Don

Grosso, Paul wrote:
> For reference, the comment is at
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dita-comment/201007/msg00010.html
> and a direct pointer to the relevant text in the spec is
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/dita/v1.2/cd03/spec/langref/indexterm.html
>
> I reread that part of the spec and the comment, and I cannot
> figure it out.  I realize I never really understood Michael's
> text on this business about range indexterms in prologs.
>
> So I have to back out of my offer to review this comment
> since if I had to review it, all I could say is that I
> also don't understand the spec in this regard.
>
> paul
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>
>
>


  • 3.  RE: [dita] Comment on the range of indexterm written in topic/prolog/metadata

    Posted 08-05-2010 22:44 
    He's objecting to this:

"Ranges defined in a prolog cover sub-topics, including those nested
based on a map; ..."

He says it's too hard for a processor to figure out where the range ends
under these conditions.

When the range starts in a topic prolog you don't need to specify the
end of the range. (You can optionally specify the end of the range, but
if you do, the @end marker is within the same prolog, not at the end of
the topic -- rather counterintuitive.) The processor has to know that
the range ends at the end of the topic. It does so even if other topics
are nested inside the topic, after the body element. (The examples don't
illustrate that -- fair enough, it's not considered good practice.)

How does the processor know that the range ends at the end of the topic?
Whatever means it uses, those means have to apply equally when the
nesting of other topics is done in a map. 

As I understand it, in the DOM this is equivalent to having the other
topics nested after the body element and before the close-topic element.
On some level, the two ways of organizing content result in the same
document object model.

The processor addresses the dependencies in the DOM, independent of
whether the tagging is in terms of nested topics or in terms of a map.

If I've understood this point correctly, the problem may be that Mr.
Makita hasn't. Or maybe their implementation treats the two ways of
creating a containment hierarchy differently.

	/B

> 
    
                                                
    
					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
    
                                                
    
                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message


Related Content