<section> vs <sect1>, ... [was: Re: usb-keys]

[Dave Pawson]

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:
> 
> <section id="like-the-title">
>   <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 back
> something meaningful that directly corresponds to your table of
> contents.
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 out the
> 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.




-- 
Regards DaveP.
XSLT&Docbook  FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl