Re: [docbook] Bridgehead alternatives

[Thomas Schraitle <tom_schr@web.de>]

Hi,

> Right now we use sect1, sect2, sect3, and sect4. When we produce our
> output in HTML Help each sect starts a new page.

You can configure that. See 
http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/ChunkingCustomization.html


> For example our table of contents can look like the following:
> sect1
>    sect2
>    sect2
>        sect3
>        sect3
>             sect4
>        sect3
>    sect2
>    sect2
>         sect3
> .........
>
> Currently, within each sect1, sect2, sect3, and sect4 we have bridgeheads.
> I like the idea of replacing the bridgeheads with a tag like section or
> simplesect and using renderas to make them appear like bridgeheads.

I consider the bridgehead element as a kind of fallback mechanism when the 
usual sect* elements are inappropriate. The bridgeheads circumvent a good 
structure. In almost all cases, sectN or section are better elements.

For example, you can customize the chunking mechanism very easily (see above). 
But when you use bridgehead and need the same functionality, this would be 
more difficult.


> Can I add <section> to the element definitions for sect1, sect2, sect3,
> and sect4? Is this a good idea?

The standard DocBook schema (be it DTD or RELAX NG) does not allow this. Of 
course, you could customize it, but I think this is not a good idea. Either 
use sect1, sect2, ... or use nested section elements, but don't mix it. For 
consistency  reasons stick to one method.


> My other thought was to change the element defintions for sect1 so that
> within a sect1 you could have simplesects followed by sect2s.
> For example:
> sect1
>        simplesect
>        sect2
>        sect2

You don't have to, it is already there. See the content model of sect1:
http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/sect1.html

Do you really need simplesect? What would be the difference for you between a 
normal sect2? For consistency reasons why not use a simple sect2 element?


Tom