DOCBOOK-APPS: RE: Help project structure

[David Cramer <dcramer@broadjump.com>]

> | Case 2: The following sibling of the title = section, so there is no
> | separate chunk for the section titled Foo. There could be a 
> toc entry,
> | but it would take you to a chunk that contains the title 
> for Foo, the
> | title for A subsection about foo, and the rest of A subsection about
> | foo..." 
> |
> | <section>
> | <title>Foo</title>
> | <section>
> | <title>A subsection about foo</title>
> 
> What you're suggesting would lead to very irregular structure:
> 
>   Section           [chunk]
>     Section         [no chunk]
>       Section       [chunk]
>       Section       [chunk]
>         Section     [chunk]
>       Section       [no chunk]
>         Section     [chunk]
>    Section          [no chunk]
>      Section        [chunk]
>   Section           [no chunk]
>      Section        [chunk]
> 
> This would make calculating the previous and next chunks (for any
> given chunk) really hard.

Actually, I was trying to suggest the following (chunking is even hard
to talk about:). Assuming all of the section/section[1]'s are like case
2 above (which would be an unusual case):

   Section           [chunk]          
     Section         [no new chunk]  << This would be weird 
       Section       [no new chunk]  << You'd probably never do it.
       Section       [chunk]
         Section     [no new chunk]
       Section       [chunk]
         Section     [no new chunk]
    Section          [chunk]
      Section        [no new chunk]
   Section           [chunk]
      Section        [chunk no new]


> Hmm. Maybe, maybe not. For online help systems, you're probably right,
> but for documentation in general, I think it's a bad sign for two
> section titles to occur in a row.

I still need to think about what I want. For html help excluding empty
chunks from the toc has the same general effect and the structure of the
document is presented in the always visible toc. The one caveat is that
those empty chunks can show up as hits in searches if the searched word
is in the title. Perhaps the whole issue is best handled with PIs.

David