Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:25:30 +0400 From: Denis Peplin <den@FreeBSD.org> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: <section> vs. <sectN> Message-ID: <41088A4A.4020401@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20040728205248.GI424@submonkey.net> References: <20040728205248.GI424@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! For me 1'st variant looks better. For example i can skip whole sect1 on first updating and then include it by searching /sect1 once. With section's search will stop on each section included (currently sect2, sect3, sect4) many times. just my $0.02 :) Ceri Davies wrote: > Which of these do we prefer? > > 1) <section> > <para>foo</para> > <section> > <para>bar</para> > </section> > </section> > > 2) <sect1> > <para>foo</para> > <sect2> > <para>bar</para> > </sect2> > </sect1> > > This is basically a style issue, as DocBook does the same for both, so > whatever the outcome it should probably be added to the FDP. > > I'll note here that nearly all of our documents use #2 already; I am > working on one of the ones that doesn't. > > Ceri
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41088A4A.4020401>