[kde-doc-english] Proposal: add missing IDs to top-level tags of manuals

[T.C. Hollingsworth]

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano at tiscali.it> wrote:
> T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano at tiscali.it> wrote:
>>> What happened here is that, if the "id" attribute for some tag (<article> for
>>> sonnet, or in some cases <book>) is not specified, a random one is generated,
>>> which is not guaranteed to be the same for different runs of the generation
>>> program.
>>
>> Is this only a problem for the toplevel DocBook tags (<article> and
>> <book>)?  If meinproc4 generates random ids for tags like <sect1> and
>> <chapter> too, yum will still be unhappy.  (Of course, we might be so
>> awesome as to not be missing any ids for such tags.  ;-)
> I haven't checked all the documents, but I've seen few <sect1> and <chapter>
> without the tag. So we should check them as well.

These need to be manually fixed, since there actually is a practical
use for anchors at this level.  ;-)

I'll run a check for these that need attention after I fix the <book>
and <article> ones, unless someone beats me to it.

>>> It seems that there are _not_ easy ways to not generate those anchors, and by
>>> "easy" I mean by setting a parameter. I only found a parameter
>>> (generate.id.attributes) which writes the id into an id attribute for the
>>> associated tag instead of new anchor tag.
>>
>> Yeah, that doesn't help at all.  (I'd very much like to turn it on in
>> the future, as it allows us to do cool stuff like highlight the
>> destination section when someone clicks a link in the TOC, but that
>> can wait until I offer up patches that make use of it.  ;-)
> That's one line, so it's up to you :)
>
>>> The highest priority would be for files which are part of co-installable
>>> multiarch packages (usually libraries, like kdelibs, kdepimlibs, etc)..
>>> I forgot to mention that I volunteer for this (for 4.9 - at least for the most
>>> important ones - and master).
>>
>> I can quickly script a fix for this for all docs in the project to
>> save you a lot of manual labor, if you'd like.  :-)
> If you have the complete checkout of all doc repository (which I don't have at
> the time, I miss few of them), it will be really appreciated, thank you!
> (plus checking sect1 and chapter).

No problem.  If there are no objections I will do this in stable and
master in a few days.

> (see also the other email).
>
> Ciao

-T.C.