From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 9 18:49:56 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: doc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10F21A9; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:49:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AF61348; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:49:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r69IntmM047467; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:49:55 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id r69IntRc047464; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:49:55 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 12:49:55 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Alberto Mijares Subject: Re: RFC: Upgrading to DocBook 5.0 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <519FA4FE.4030305@FreeBSD.org> <51D3E051.5070506@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:49:55 -0600 (MDT) Cc: doc@freebsd.org, Gabor Kovesdan X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:49:56 -0000 On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Alberto Mijares wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Gabor Kovesdan 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, should be kept, I think. But it is another thing the user has to track. The DocBook 5 book shows both forms. Converting to
would be just a search and replace. Do we need to pick one method before the DockBook 5 version merge?