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
