dita message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Proposed revision for the keyword definition (was Keywords inDITA)
- From: Michael Priestley <mpriestl@ca.ibm.com>
- To: Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:32:37 -0500
I think that may be a little stronger
than it can afford to be. Keep in mind that <apiname> and <wintitle>
elements are both specializations of <keyword>, so everywhere you
refer to an <apiname> or a <wintitle> it would also be correct
to just use <keyword>. You might mention an <apiname> or <wintitle>
in discourse without it being a core keyword for the topic as a whole.
I think this gets at what Paul was saying about different explanations
being required when the markup occurs in the <keywords> section (where
they are keywords for the whole doc) versus in body content (where they
are simply key words of some variety, without being too specific about
exactly why they're important).
How about:
A <keyword> is any word or noun phrase
that has special significance, for example because it a is a key word for
the topic, or because it is a part of the user interface or of a programming
language. Do not use <keyword> when a more appropriate domain-specific
equivalent is available, for example <wintitle> or <apiname>.
Specialized elements derived from <keyword>
may also have extended processing, such as different formatting or automatic
indexing. If the keyref attribute is used, or some other method of key-based
lookup based on the value of the element itself, then the keyword can be
turned into a hyperlink on output (not currently supported).
When DITA topics are output to XHTML, any <keyword>
elements in the <keywords> element are placed in the Web page metadata.
I'm avoiding talking about them being
used for indexing/search when they occur in the body of the text, because
they may be keywords in the DITA sense without being key words for the
topic as a whole.
Michael Priestley
mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>
03/14/2005 06:34 PM
|
To
| Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>
|
cc
| Erik Hennum <ehennum@us.ibm.com>,
dita@lists.oasis-open.org, Don Day <dond@us.ibm.com>, JoAnn Hackos
<joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>, Paul Prescod <paul.prescod@blastradius.com>,
Rob Frankland <robf@rascalsoftware.com>
|
Subject
| [dita] Proposed revision
for the keyword definition (was Keywords in DITA) |
|
Okay, maybe Paul's gone home already - here's
my proposal for a replacement definition for keyword in v1.0 of the language
spec, my changes/additions in
green:
keyword
A <keyword> is a word that encapsulates the significance of a topic.
If you searched on a keyword
and retrieved the topic it appears in, you would be happy with the result.
Being so central to the meaning
of a topic, keywords typically appear inline in the body of the text. They
can either be marked-up as such
in place, or reproduced in the <keywords> element directly as metadata.
Compare indexterm, kwd.
Specialized elements derived from <keyword> may also have extended
processing, such as different
formatting or automatic indexing. If the keyref attribute is used, the
keyword can be turned into a
hyperlink on output (not currently supported).
When DITA topics are output to XHTML, any <keyword> or <indexterm>
elements in the <keywords>
element are placed in the Web page metadata. In addition, any index terms
in this context are also used
for supported index processing (for example, for print versions). Any
<keyword> or <indexterm> elements
appearing in the body of the text are also reproduced, uniquely, in the
Web page metadata (not currently
supported).
For ease of reference, here's what's there
currently (changed section in
red):
keyword
The <keyword> element identifies a keyword or token, such as a single
value from an enumerated list,
the name of a command or parameter, or a lookup key for a message (contrast
with term).
Specialized elements derived from <keyword> may also have extended
processing, such as different
formatting or automatic indexing. If the keyref attribute is used, the
keyword can be turned into a
hyperlink on output (not currently supported).
When DITA topics are output to XHTML, any <keyword> or <indexterm>
elements in the <keywords>
element are placed in the Web page metadata. In addition, any index terms
in this context are also used
for supported index processing (for example, for print versions).
--Dana
Dana Spradley wrote:
I agree, Erik - which is why I'd like to
see the <keyword> definition changed in the draft spec to reflect
one single meaning - the meaning implied by the meaning of <keywords>,
and not a meaning that duplicates the meaning of <kwd> - than two
divergent ones.
After that, I also agree that a userful enhancement down the road would
be replacing <keywords> with something like <topicwords> or,
say, <semes> or <coverTerms> or <conceptualBreadcrumbs>
or <searchHooks> or <topicHandles> or something, and including
all metadata elements that seek to encapsulate the overall gist of the
topic into it, if they aren't put inline in the body of the text instead.
I'm new to the TC, and hesitate to propose a replacement definition myself.
Paul Prescod, do you feel like risking a definition in advance of tomorrow's
meeting? Your offer to try your hand did, after all, begin this subthread.
--Dana
Erik Hennum wrote:
Hi, Dana, JoAnn, and Rob:
I'd like to submit some reservations about defining elements based on the
expected output instead of the content semantics:
- An HTML generator could legitimately choose to populate
the keyword metadata with semantic words that are delimited by <term>
and <keyword> elements within the text.
- A PDF generator could legitimately choose to display semantic
words associated with the topic as a whole in the page header.
- A specialization designer should be able to specialize
an element once to indicate a particular vocabulary (for instance, <chemicalterm>
or <programword>) regardless of whether an instance of the vocabulary
appears in the text or is associated with the topic as a whole. That's
possible only if the base element can appear in both contexts. Here's an
example:
<metadata>
<keywords>
<chemicalterm>molecule</chemicalterm>
<programword>element</programword>
</keywords>
</metadata>
...
<p>You list each <chemicalterm>atom</chemicalterm> in
the <programword>array</programword>....</p>
If anything, I'd suggest that the culprit in creating confusing expectations
might be the <keywords> element. A metadata <topicwords> element
that can contain <keyword>, <term>, or <indexterm> might
be better, but I wouldn't expect serious consideration of that thought
until after DITA 1.0
The need for enhancement never ends, and if we try to squeeze in this one,
I'm sure lots of others will come out of the woodwork (such as the deferred
<data> element).
Hoping that's useful,
Erik Hennum
ehennum@us.ibm.com
Dana
Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>
erratum: "otherwise you're sending mixed messages..."
In fact, it seems to me this whole discussion was provoked by a bad definition
for <keyword> in the language spec, which defined it as a keyword
in the technical programming sense, while from the <keywords> definition
you would have expected it to be defined as in DocBook.
We could solve the entire issue by just revising that <keyword> definition
to be what <keywords> expects.
If people feel there is a need for keywords in the technical sense to migrate
beyond the confines of syntax diagrams, then that's a separate issue for
the folks working on the Programming Domain vis-a-vis the <kwd> element
- which *is* defined as a keyword in the technical programming sense.
--Dana
Dana Spradley wrote:
I agree on the DocBook part, but disagree
on the <keyword> in other
contexts is more like a word from an API or language clause.
The <kwd> element exists for that.
<keyword> outside <keywords> should have the same meaning it
does within - outwise you're sending mixed messages to authors, and mixing
up the use.
JoAnn Hackos wrote:
Sounds like a good solution.
JoAnn
JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD
President
Comtech Services, Inc.
710 Kipling Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80215
303-232-7586
joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com
http://www.comtech-serv.com
From: Rob Frankland [mailto:robf@rascalsoftware.com]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:29 AM
To: 'Paul Prescod'; JoAnn Hackos; 'Don Day'
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
I agree, having followed this thread. Your suggested solution covers both
use cases. I believe the largest number of users will want the HTML/Docbook
usage and this enables the programmer writers to meet their needs as well.
Rob
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul.prescod@blastradius.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 5:46 PM
To: JoAnn Hackos; Don Day
Cc: dita@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [dita] Keywords in DITA
Okay, an emerging consensus seems to be that <keyword> in <keywords>
means <keyword> in the HTML/Docbook sense.
http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/keyword.html
. It is typically hidden from the user as metadata and embedded in the
HTML meta tag.
<keyword> in other contexts is more like a word from an API or language.
Should we just document it that way? If so, I can suggest some wordings.
Paul Prescod
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]