Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:49:11 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: des@des.no Cc: keramida@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: <section> vs. <sectN> Message-ID: <20040729.164911.02302593.hrs@eos.ocn.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: <xzp1xivpabx.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <20040728205248.GI424@submonkey.net> <20040728213909.GA94208@gothmog.gr> <xzp1xivpabx.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Thu_Jul_29_16_49_11_2004_932)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable des@des.no (Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav) wrote in <xzp1xivpabx.fsf@dwp.des.no>: des> Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> writes: des> > I'm not sure if it was a matter of personal taste or if he had s= omething des> > else in mind. I'd like to hear what he has to say too before de= ciding des> > for or against some style rule. des> = des> I believe <sectN> is deprecated in newer DocBook versions. My mai= n des> reason for preferring <section>, though, is that it makes life a l= ot des> easier if you ever need to move sections up or down. I do not think it will be deprecated. nwalsh clearly says "The non-recursive forms are imperative" in DocBook RFE ID#438018= .= -- = | Hiroki SATO ----Security_Multipart(Thu_Jul_29_16_49_11_2004_932)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBCKv3TyzT2CeTzy0RAn8YAJ99aRANQJDdmbGvJY/6BwK/NoAhcwCfUATB 4mczG/1bWXs5M7tx3zGBtak= =VEiA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Thu_Jul_29_16_49_11_2004_932)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040729.164911.02302593.hrs>