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:]
> Sent: Friday, 2006 June 16 09:10
> To: Paul Prescod
> Cc:
> 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.
>
