Re: should simplesect be chunked?

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

"Bob Stayton" <bobs@sagehill.net> writes:

> While reviewing a stylesheet bug, I also noticed that the simplesect
> element is not chunked.  That seems odd to me, since a simplesect is a
> real section, except that it cannot have child sections.  Does anyone
> see a problem with making simplesect into chunks?

The important semantic distinction between simplesect and the other
sectioning elements isn't merely that they're leaves, it's that *they
never occur in the table of contents*.

   http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/simplesect#d0e205533

<aside>Bleh, those sections need proper IDs.</aside>

So, while I think arguments on the basis of size could go either way,
and while it's also not entirely impossible to imagine chunks that are
only available by navigating sequentially through them, the fact that
they aren't in the ToC makes them poor candidates for chunk targets,
IMHO.

And that's almost certainly why I left them out originally.

If you've got a long chapter that consists entirely of simplesects, I
don't think you're helping your reader very much. If you're putting
simplesects in the ToC, you're doing it wrong :-)

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | The First Amendment is often
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | inconvenient. But that is besides
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | the point. Inconvenience does not
                                   | absolve the government of its
                                   | obligation to tolerate
                                   | speech.--Justice Anthony Kennedy,
                                   | in 91-155

PGP signature