WARNING: This server is unstable and will be retired in the next days.
If you want to keep this forum available, please request immediately a migration
on the Nabble Support forum.
Forums that don't receive any migration request will be deleted forever.
Interesting approach. I particularly like the use of simplesect as a
For us, we could use simplesect, but for the other sections I think we
would need to stick to sect1, sect2, etc.
We're using FrameMaker, and I don't think I can get Frame's proprietary
stylesheet to apply styles (to the recursive "section" elements) on the
basis of children. It applies heading styles chiefly on the basis of
ancestors, often just by counting them. The count, of course, can vary
in our bottom-up system.
This would not be a problem with XSLT.
From: Johnson, Eric [mailto:Eric.Johnson@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:45 AM
To: docbook@... Subject: RE: [docbook] should I use section or sect1, sect2, sect3 etc?
Without doing any mods to the DTD you could use simplesect as the text
holder (Point) and use section as the (Topic). One advantage of this
break down is that simplesect enforces the structure by disallowing any
further decomposition into smaller sections.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nilsson, David F [mailto:dfnilsson@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:43 AM
> To: Rock Lobster; docbook@... > Subject: RE: [docbook] should I use section or sect1, sect2,
> sect3 etc?
> I've found numbered sections to be useful when modifying the DocBook
> DTD so that you can use it to create documents similar to those
> created by the commercial Information Mapping system.
> In such a system, you build documents from the bottom up, rather than
> from the top down.
> All text goes within the lowest level, say, a Sect3, and a Chapter
> would be made up of a group of Sect2 elements. I call this a
> topic-point structure, in which the Sect2 elements are the Topics
> within the chapter, and the Sect3 elements are the Points containing
> the text.
> If, as you develop the document, you find you have too many
> Sect2 elements (Topics), you group them under new Sect1 elements.
> It seems to me to be a natural way to write because the structure
> develops out of the material as you discover it.
> And there's no problem with reuse because the lowest level is always
> the one containing the text.
> If you wanted a somewhat deeper hierarchy, you could start with a
> (Point) at the bottom, and it would be possible to have a
> Sect3 (Topic) immediately under the Chapter. As you developed the
> book, you could add
> Sect2 and Sect1 levels as necessary.
> Of course, all this requires some (rather small) modifications to the
> DocBook DTD.
> Dave Nilsson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rock Lobster [mailto:email@...]
> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:56 AM
> To: docbook@... > Subject: [docbook] should I use section or sect1, sect2, sect3 etc?
> I'm somehow confused on whether I should use nested <section> tags, or
> the "predefined" <sect1> to <sect5>.
> Are there any benefits in using the latter? Are there any reasons why
> one way should be avoided in certain situations?
> Thanks in advance!
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/should-I-use-section-or-sect1%2C-sect2%2 C-sect3-et
> Sent from the docbook General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@... For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@...