Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:49:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Alberto Mijares <amijaresp@gmail.com> Cc: doc@freebsd.org, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Upgrading to DocBook 5.0 Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307091151000.46436@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGZBXN8dLmf6iuCpD4cw5zbOP-NLj%2BRqqxtndRa9rAvScSo3Ag@mail.gmail.com> References: <519FA4FE.4030305@FreeBSD.org> <51D3E051.5070506@FreeBSD.org> <CAGZBXN8dLmf6iuCpD4cw5zbOP-NLj%2BRqqxtndRa9rAvScSo3Ag@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Alberto Mijares wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Em 24-05-2013 19:35, Gabor Kovesdan escreveu: >>> >>> I'm working on upgrading our documentation set to DocBook 5.0 and I'd like >>> to discuss some details. We have some customizations and strange uses, which >>> can be expressed with DocBook 5.0's own vocabulary. This upgrade is a good >>> opportunity to change these, as well. I propose the following changes in our >>> vocabulary: >> >> 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. > So, <sect[123...]> should be kept, I think. But it is another thing the user has to track. The DocBook 5 book shows both forms. Converting to <section> would be just a search and replace. Do we need to pick one method before the DockBook 5 version merge?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1307091151000.46436>