From mjohnson at redhat.com Thu Jun 4 22:05:38 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1425400403838265283==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Mark Johnson To: docs at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re:
vs , ... [was: Re: usb-keys] Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:05:47 -0400 Message-ID: <411D1F1B.4080306@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 1092421685.2449.62.camel@berlin.east.gov --===============1425400403838265283== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Paul W. Frields wrote: >>I'd recommend a standard of: >> >>
>> Like The Title: The Details >> >>The ID has meaning to the content. When moving chunks if
s >>around, you can know what something is easily. Want an idea what >>sections you have in what order? 'grep ">something meaningful that directly corresponds to your table of >>contents. >> >>Any other thoughts on this? I'll hold off for a bit on filling out the >>bug report. :) > = > = > Up until now we've been using Documentation Guide instructions that > recommend attributes such as id=3D"s1-top-section" or id=3D"s2-subsection= ". To me (& I would guess Karsten), assigning IDs based on the document = structure seems not to take advantage of ID=3D"meaning-of-content". If = one wants to give IDs such as id=3D"s1-top-section", one can get the = same effect by having the stylesheet *not* use IDs as filenames for = html output. The output filenames then serve the purpose of = identifying the structural location of the output file within the = document. I have to admit that I found it bizarre when I first discovered that = one would assign IDs as id=3D"s2-subsection", etc. This method seems = to throw out the possibility to add some content-related info to the = tags themselves. Don't forget that we're trying to convey meaning = here. The more semantic meaning we can give to the structural markup = the better, IMO. FWIW, I've always used meaning-derived IDs, such as = id=3D"xml-catalogs", as that's what the section is about. And to me, I = *want* the output filename to be "xml-catalogs.html" because it = carries more meaning than does the sort of structure identifier = recommended in the Documentation Guide. Perhaps in some abstract way, having output filenames like = "s2-subsection.html" adds a more 'professional' touch to the docs, = but I'm not even sure what I mean by that:) My $0.02, Mark > Will we likewise be abandoning those as well? They don't actually cut > down on portability but definitely interfere with the logic of the > document when one starts copying and pasting sections around. > = > Perhaps using id=3D"sn-*" would work better, and allow us to keep most of > the guidelines as they are. I supposed sed really is our friend! :-D > = -- = ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Johnson Red Hat Documentation Group Tel: 919.754.4151 Fax: 919.754.3708 GPG fp: DBEA FA3C C46A 70B5 F120 568B 89D5 4F61 C07D E242 --===============1425400403838265283==--