[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: <section> vs <sect1>, ... [was: Re: usb-keys]
- From: Dave Pawson <davep dpawson co uk>
- To: Karsten Wade <kwade redhat com>
- Cc: For participants of the docs project <fedora-docs-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: <section> vs <sect1>, ... [was: Re: usb-keys]
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:48:34 +0100
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
this?
I'd be happy to live with either way, but like the option of both.
Certainly the standard docbook processing favours sect1... as I see it.
It does perhaps beg the question why does fedora-docs start at article,
when it can go all the way up to set.
--
Regards DaveP.
XSLT&Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]