<section> vs <sect1>, ... [was: Re: usb-keys]

[Karsten Wade]

On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 10:48, Dave Pawson wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 18:44, Karsten Wade wrote:
> 
> > > I wouldn't mandate either. There will be occasions when nested depths
> > > will be wanted. 
> > 
> > Can you give some examples?  If <sections> are automatically nested,
> > what value is there in having fixed <sectn>?  Especially if the practice
> > is deprecated?
> 
> I'd be very surprised to see it deprecated. Where was the origin of
> this?

Word of mouth, Mark Johnson mentioned it several times on this list. 
Since he is an active member of the DocBook steering committee, I figure
he has some clue there.

> I'd be happy to live with either way, but like the option of both.
> Certainly the standard docbook processing favours sect1... as I see it.

It's possible we could make it optional, but I still don't understand
what the value is in fixed nesting values for <section> tags.  I always
understood it to have been a self-limitation to keep newbies from overly
nesting. 

Can you give some examples of where it is useful?

> It does perhaps beg the question why does fedora-docs start at article,
> when it can go all the way up to set.

If I understand your statement correctly, I think this has been answered
a number of times.  We are doing <article> sized docs because it's a
bite that we can chew.  Look at how well we've done so far, which is not
really that well.  If we had massive <book>s to create as part of
<set>s, we'd be finishing the set for FC2 just about the time that
FC5test2 was being released.

Have patience, it is through these tiny steps that we will walk our
first mile.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE, Tech Writer
a lemon is just a melon in disguise
http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115  5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41