Re: [jats-list] BITS: Is there a canonical way to group mul

Hi,

Yes, and with maddeningly complete freedom comes maddeningly complete
responsibility. :-)

This is the point where I'd start asking about the larger strategy
regarding conformance, customization and local use.

In some circumstances I might prefer to subset my profile of the DTD
quite severely, deprecating 'app' with a few other similarly
problematic structural elements. I might allow them in JATS outputs
generated for purposes of interchange, but to keep my models and
processing simple and consistent (and to avoid twists like this one),
I might stick with 'sec' internally (with appropriate @sec-type to
constrain, validate and drive processing). Of course, this is a kind
of customization, albeit not at the level of the DTD itself.

In others, I might agree with Nikos and superset, not subset, the DTD,
allowing glossary in more places. Especially if I had reason to think
this wouldn't force me to go the other way again to interchange with
others expecting strict conformance. :-)

I think this sort of stress between the formal models and the
requirements of the real world is inevitable, especially when we get
to books. Falling back on generic elements makes a good solution in
many (not all) cases, but where the standard can adapt to particulars
without twisting itself into knots, that's usually even better.

Cheers, Wendell
Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
Eat Your Vegetables
_____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Debbie Lapeyre
<dalapeyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>  (Now I'm with Gerrit. It does seem a bit like the tail
>> wagging the dog. If any book-part can have back matter, then the back
>> matter inside any one of them is its own, not the back matter in some
>> larger undefined scope.) My own compromise might be to render the
>> appendix and glossary as generic 'sec' (with @sec-type) so they could
>> be in the body of the book-part.
>
>
> You may call it a <sec> inside either <body> or <back>.
> There is maddeningly complete freedom on this point.
> The outer 'Appendix' could be a <sec>, the <app> inside it
> could then be <sec>s too. Your choice, but I'd call an
> <app> and <app>.
>
> --Debbie
>
> ================================================================
> Deborah A Lapeyre              mailto:dalapeyre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Mulberry Technologies, Inc.      http://www.mulberrytech.com
> 17 West Jefferson Street         Phone: 301-315-9631 (USA)
> Suite 207                        Fax:   301-315-8385
> Rockville, MD 20850
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Mulberry Technologies: Consultancy for XML, XSLT, and Schematron
> ================================================================

<- Previous	Index	Next ->
Re: [jats-list] BITS: Is there a ca, Debbie Lapeyre	Thread	Re: [jats-list] BITS: Is there a ca, Imsieke, Gerrit, le-
Re: [jats-list] Training on JATS XM, Debbie Lapeyre	Date	[jats-list] inline tables, Kirsten Howard
	Month

<-prev [Thread] next->	<-prev [Date] next->
Month Index \| List Home

Re: [jats-list] BITS: Is there a canonical way to group multiple appendices and a glossary under a single 'Appendix' heading?