[kde-guidelines] CVS - Attempt to summarise

[Frans Englich]

On Thursday 04 November 2004 12:50, Lauri Watts wrote:
> On Thursday 04 November 2004 13:08, Frans Englich wrote:
<snip>
> > (BTW, I think we should use <section> instead of <sectX> unless someone
> > objects, since they aren't specific on what level they are in. FYI )
>
> I object, I wrote the xslt to deal with the nested sections, and they give
> a clear visual and semantic guide to where you are in the hierarchy, which
> is both useful and in fact, important when the source files are not
> indented.

What a relief then, that it can also be done with sectionS too. No reason to 
object for that. You can do it by counting the previous sectionS of the 
current context, see docbook-xsl/xhtml/sections.xsl.

It sounds like overkill though. Why couldn't vanilla Docbook be used? 
Displaying sectionS sounds like something not specific to our needs. Are the 
templates in CVS?

>
> The structure of the doc and the rendering tricks being done with it,
> require a specific nesting structure.

(but that's also doable with sectionS, as discussed above)

> <sectN> are not deprecated, they 
> will not be going away soon (DB always deprecates elements for at least a
> major version before removal)

Right, first 5.0(it can be a good idea to plan such that we avoid shooting 
ourself in the foot). You're not going to argue against the Docbook Working 
Group choice of section, and say that sectX actually are better? :) I mean, I 
already have a fulltime job of bringing forward W3C's Xincludes(ka dum dum 
bing).


Cheers,

		Frans