----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 1:39 PM
Subject: [docbook-apps] Re: should simplesect be chunked?
The important semantic distinction between simplesect and the other
sectioning elements isn't merely that they're leaves, it's that *they
never occur in the table of contents*.
http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/simplesect#d0e205533
Hi Norm,
Well, that's new information. That statement was not in TDG versions prior
to DocBook 5. The current TDG for 4.5 does not mention that processing
expectation:
http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/simplesect.html
Even in TDG5, there is no explanation of *why* it is to be excluded from
the TOC. That implies further usage expectations that are not expressed in
the doc. I think it would be helpful if that were expanded a bit, perhaps
with
more examples of simplesect usage.
Although this TOC-exclusion feature was written into the original
stylesheets, currently
there is a $simplesect.in.toc parameter in both the FO and HTML stylesheets
that turns it on (set to zero by default). Maybe that statement in TDG
should say
"not usually" instead of "never". 8^)
I think that since simplesect has been around for a long time as just a
terminal section with not much else in the way of usage guidelines, I would
think that we shouldn't dictate too much how it should be used now.
If it doesn't add to much complication to the already complicated chunking
templates, maybe I'll just add another parameter "chunk.simplesects" and
set it to zero by default. That would give those who use simplesect as
a significant section the option of treating it as other sections.
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
