Re: [docbook] Best Practice in using sect1 - sect5

[Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>]

On 16/05/11 11:38, � wrote:
[...]
> Why is there a need to have two ways to specify a section's (or
> article's, or book's...) title?

I use section when I need divisions within non-chapter components such 
as preface. Within chapters, I use sect1/2/3/4 extensively because it's 
easier to see where you are when the divisional level is part of the 
element type name.

 > I vote to ditch <sect1> to <sect5> elements from the next incarnation
 > of docbook. <section> is enough.

Not until we have better editors, thank you.

> Considering the fact that DocBook
> already has hundreds (literally) of elements, which makes it both
> flexible and powerful, but also steeps up the learning curve, I think
> the next version of DocBook deserves a thorough cleanup of everything
> that can lead to duality (like the sectN vs. section, or info+title vs
> title).

I'd vote to fix some of the more serious problems first. Like the sudden 
absence of an info in biblioentry in DB5 (where previous versions had 
articleinfo). It is now impossible conveniently to encode articles, 
chapters, and other thing-within-thing bibliographic entries because 
there is no way separately to identify the title of the article or 
chapter from the title of the journal or book in which it appears. Sure, 
it's easy to add back, but it should never have been removed in the 
first place.

///Peter