Hi again!
What we'd like to do is go through and tag our docs with DITA-like tags.
We don't want to necessarily move to DITA but we'd like
to mimic some of the DITA content analysis. Our plan, at the moment, is to
use the remap attribute to tag the content as concept, task, and
reference.
Within any sectn we can have content, usually divided by bridgeheads, that
needs to be tagged as concept, task, or reference. That is, we can't
simply
tag our information at the sectn level. The problem that we are running
into is how to tag the content that is within our bridgeheads. We need a
tag that will
contain the bridgehead and the content underneath it.
Simplesect appeals to me because it is different from sect1, sect2, sect3,
sect4. Our writers would only have to switch from using bridgeheads to
using the simplesect tag.
We could use a sect2 with a role and change the css in our XML editor
(which is currently XMetaL but we are also looking at Oxygen) so that the
sect2 with the role looked like the old
bridgeheads but it doesn't seem ideal to me.
I think that there is a difference between docbook versions 4.2 and 5.0 in
how simplesects and sect1s are allowed to exist.
In 4.2, from my understanding (and please correct me!), in a sect1 you
can have
((refentry)*| zero or more refeintry OR
sect2*|simplesect*))| zero or more sect2 OR zero or more simplesect
OR
(refentry)+| one or more refentry OR
sect2+|simplesect+)one or more sect2 OR one or more simplesect AND ..
(toc|lot|index|glossary|bibliography)*)
That is, in version 4.2 you can't have a simplesect followed by a sect2;
you can either have
sect1
sect2
sect2...
OR
sect1
simplesect
simplesect
....
However, in version 5, it appears that within a sect1 you can have
simplesects followed by sect2s.
Optionally one of:
Sequence of:
One or more of:
sect2
Zero or more of:
simplesect
One or more of:
simplesect
Sequence of:
One or more of:
sect2
Zero or more of:
simplesect
One or more of:
simplesect
Kate
Thomas Schraitle <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]
02/04/2009 12:52 PM
To
[email protected]
cc
[email protected], "Rowland, Larry" <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: [docbook] Bridgehead alternatives
Hi,
> Right now we use sect1, sect2, sect3, and sect4. When we produce our
> output in HTML Help each sect starts a new page.
You can configure that. See
http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/ChunkingCustomization.html
> For example our table of contents can look like the following:
> sect1
> sect2
> sect2
> sect3
> sect3
> sect4
> sect3
> sect2
> sect2
> sect3
> .........
>
> Currently, within each sect1, sect2, sect3, and sect4 we have
bridgeheads.
> I like the idea of replacing the bridgeheads with a tag like section or
> simplesect and using renderas to make them appear like bridgeheads.
I consider the bridgehead element as a kind of fallback mechanism when the
usual sect* elements are inappropriate. The bridgeheads circumvent a good
structure. In almost all cases, sectN or section are better elements.
For example, you can customize the chunking mechanism very easily (see
above).
But when you use bridgehead and need the same functionality, this would be
more difficult.
> Can I add <section> to the element definitions for sect1, sect2, sect3,
> and sect4? Is this a good idea?
The standard DocBook schema (be it DTD or RELAX NG) does not allow this.
Of
course, you could customize it, but I think this is not a good idea.
Either
use sect1, sect2, ... or use nested section elements, but don't mix it.
For
consistency reasons stick to one method.
> My other thought was to change the element defintions for sect1 so that
> within a sect1 you could have simplesects followed by sect2s.
> For example:
> sect1
> simplesect
> sect2
> sect2
You don't have to, it is already there. See the content model of sect1:
http://www.docbook.org/tdg/en/html/sect1.html
Do you really need simplesect? What would be the difference for you
between a
normal sect2? For consistency reasons why not use a simple sect2 element?
Tom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
