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 > this? 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 both. > 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 nesting. Can you give some examples of where it is useful? > It does perhaps beg the question why does fedora-docs start at article, > 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 first mile. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, RHCE, Tech Writer a lemon is just a melon in disguise http://people.redhat.com/kwade/ gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
