On Fri, 2004-08-13 at 19:13, Karsten Wade wrote:
The value that you can get from an explicit section number and
associated ID tag are far less than the value of true modularity and the
ability to interleave documents.
sect1..n can be enumerated just as readily as section.
Equally stylesheets can generate id values for both.
Since this is all FDL covered materials, we do our own licensing choice
a service by making it easier to use our works in a truly free manner.
I'd recommend a standard of:
<title>Like The Title: The Details</title>
The ID has meaning to the content.
the (nominal) typo there immediately hints at a weakness in
doing this manually?
When moving chunks if <section>s
around, you can know what something is easily. Want an idea what
sections you have in what order? 'grep "<section" *.xml' gives
something meaningful that directly corresponds to your table of
If the content is sufficient to warrant that then the complexity
will make it nominally difficult to re-use in alternate order?
IBM have a structure which is more aligned to this class of re-use.
Any other thoughts on this? I'll hold off for a bit on filling
bug report. :)
I wouldn't mandate either. There will be occasions when nested depths
will be wanted.
the only real difference is that the stylesheet treat sect1..n
differently from recursive sections.
sed will change sect(1|2|3|4) to section without much problem.