Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 03:11:31 -0430 From: Alberto Mijares <amijaresp@gmail.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: doc@freebsd.org, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Upgrading to DocBook 5.0 Message-ID: <CAGZBXN_aJhg1U=tJ%2BcV%2BSRwpy6p8j2DX5mz_F-JHZz7gHYnrUw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307091151000.46436@wonkity.com> References: <519FA4FE.4030305@FreeBSD.org> <51D3E051.5070506@FreeBSD.org> <CAGZBXN8dLmf6iuCpD4cw5zbOP-NLj%2BRqqxtndRa9rAvScSo3Ag@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307091151000.46436@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> One more thing to discuss: shall we maintain the sect1, sect2, ... >>> elements >>> or just use section? The section element can have another section element >>> embedded and the numbering in the rendered version is inferred by the >>> level >>> of embedment. This is more uniform and less redundant. In own docs that I >>> write with DocBook I only use section and it works fine. Opinions? > > >> IMHO, is a good thing to keep a visual clue of the level you are going >> down while writing. > > > Yes, but that is what the indentation also does. I agree. However, since humans identify characters much better than they do with indentation, using sect1 and so is a help for those who want to improve documentation. Using only <section> may be confusing for some people and I don't see the win with changing that. > > >> So, <sect[123...]> should be kept, I think. > > > But it is another thing the user has to track. I'm not a very experienced docbook user but an occasional one, and I can tell you this is not a big deal to track with. It's just my opinion. Regards, Alberto Mijares
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGZBXN_aJhg1U=tJ%2BcV%2BSRwpy6p8j2DX5mz_F-JHZz7gHYnrUw>