[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] Re: should simplesect be chunked?
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com> > To: <docbook-apps@lists.oasis-open.org> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:39 PM > Subject: [docbook-apps] Re: should simplesect be chunked? > 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 Hi Norm, Well, that's new information. That statement was not in TDG versions prior to DocBook 5. The current TDG for 4.5 does not mention that processing expectation: http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/simplesect.html Even in TDG5, there is no explanation of *why* it is to be excluded from the TOC. That implies further usage expectations that are not expressed in the doc. I think it would be helpful if that were expanded a bit, perhaps with more examples of simplesect usage. Although this TOC-exclusion feature was written into the original stylesheets, currently there is a $simplesect.in.toc parameter in both the FO and HTML stylesheets that turns it on (set to zero by default). Maybe that statement in TDG should say "not usually" instead of "never". 8^) I think that since simplesect has been around for a long time as just a terminal section with not much else in the way of usage guidelines, I would think that we shouldn't dictate too much how it should be used now. If it doesn't add to much complication to the already complicated chunking templates, maybe I'll just add another parameter "chunk.simplesects" and set it to zero by default. That would give those who use simplesect as a significant section the option of treating it as other sections. Bob Stayton Sagehill Enterprises bobs@sagehill.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]