On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 10:48, Dave Pawson wrote:
On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 18:44, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > I wouldn't mandate either. There will be occasions when nested depths
> > will be wanted.
> Can you give some examples? If <sections> are automatically nested,
> what value is there in having fixed <sectn>? Especially if the practice
> is deprecated?
I'd be very surprised to see it deprecated. Where was the origin of
Word of mouth, Mark Johnson mentioned it several times on this list.
Since he is an active member of the DocBook steering committee, I figure
he has some clue there.
I'd be happy to live with either way, but like the option of
Certainly the standard docbook processing favours sect1... as I see it.
It's possible we could make it optional, but I still don't understand
what the value is in fixed nesting values for <section> tags. I always
understood it to have been a self-limitation to keep newbies from overly
Can you give some examples of where it is useful?
It does perhaps beg the question why does fedora-docs start at
when it can go all the way up to set.
If I understand your statement correctly, I think this has been answered
a number of times. We are doing <article> sized docs because it's a
bite that we can chew. Look at how well we've done so far, which is not
really that well. If we had massive <book>s to create as part of
<set>s, we'd be finishing the set for FC2 just about the time that
FC5test2 was being released.
Have patience, it is through these tiny steps that we will walk our
Karsten Wade, RHCE, Tech Writer
a lemon is just a melon in disguise
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41