> > match. Using the docbook-xsl-1.60.1/onchunk.xsl to transform to html > > creates a nice TOC with the proposal in a single html file. > > Does this do a better job than the BoostBook html-single.xsl?
Don't know, I'll have to try html-single.xsl. I didn't see that... > > in a combined set of docs. I'm wondering if there would be some > > advantage to in converting to a docbook book for each library? > > I haven't done any experiments, so I'm hoping someone with more > > experience with docbook will make suggestions here... > > The only advantage I can see of using a set (I haven't tried!) is that it will > give us another level in the hierarchy. Things can get pretty deeply nested > in library documentation, and there is a warning that some processing systems > act badly when there are many nested sections (I can think of one example: > HTML only has <h1> to <h6>, no further). Anyway, I'll try it out sometime. I was thinking there might be special treatment that the standard docbook scripts give to book/chapter level sections. Not sure what that might be, hence the question. One thing I am a bit leery of, however, is that I don't think I want to start writing docs with 'chapter' divisions b/c I think that means that it must be used within a 'book'. The nice thing about 'section' is that it just fits in at whatever level it happens to be included. > > 2) How many levels of TOC? > > ... > > I've figured out that we can set toc.section.depth parameter > > when using the docbook scripts. If we need to set these > > types of parameters we will either need to do this as a > > set of command line parameters in the Jamfile or as a > > wrapper xsl script. Any thoughts on how we want to handle > > these? > > > > Jeff > > I think we should do both. We have customization XSL stylesheets for DocBook > HTML and FO output already (see boostbook-xsl/html.xsl, > boostbook-xsl/html-single.xsl, and boostbook-xsl/fo.xsl), and anything we > consider a good default should go into those. However, I would _really_ like > for the Jam rules to be able to customize these parameters further; maybe add > Jam "features" for stylesheet parameters, so one could add, e.g., > "<toc.section.depth>3" to the command line to set a stylesheet parameter (the > same syntax would work within a Jamfile). Sounds good to me. Anyway, I think 3 levels of TOC would be good default setting... Jeff ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
