On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 10:43, Dave Pawson wrote: > On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 18:28, Karsten Wade wrote: > > So ... where will the XSL get the information from for making meaningful > > file names on the opposite side? From the <title>? > > Dangerous. > The title content, as well as having spaces, could have all sorts of > Unicode in it. That would make for bad filenames. > > Depends on what is currently in use. > > http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/Chunking.html#ChunkFilenames shows > the options for xslt processing. > > Take your pick. > I'd personally let the processor pick the filenames, but I don't attach > much importance to them. YMMV :-) I don't attach much importance to them in a short <article> with a few <section>s, but it does help with a 200 page book to be able to tell from the HTML filename roughly where you are in which file. We're trying to create process that can support us in the future, when we have guides that size. In the SGML toolchain we use internally, all of the ID tags are used. <sect1> become the main filename, but every <section> has an <a name> that is the same as the ID (all in caps), e.g. s1-srv-ttr-help.sgml#S3-SRV-TTR-STANDING-STILL . I think that an ID that has contextual meaning to the associated content is useful. You don't care either way. So, it seems we have reached some consensus. :) Without a compelling reasons to have both <sect1...5> and <section> as FDP style, can we agree to use the more modular <section>? - 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
