/ Terry Allen <> was heard to say:
| - Simplesect came before section, I think. Am I wrong?
No. Which is to say, yes, simplesect came before section.
| - Section's goal was absolute genericity (if not generousity)
| below the Chapter or Article level
| - it was not a part of the goal to enable Simplesect
|
| So while we probably just forgot about Simplesect, it's not
| inappropriate that we didn't allow for it. If we'd thought
| about it, we might well have left it out intentionally.
|
| Does someone want Simplesect in Section, or does the question
| arise from stylesheet exercises (anyone remember Czerny?)?
I wanted a terminal section of a document to be formatted differently.
Making the terminal sections SimpleSects looked like an easy way out.
In the end, what I had in mind was tag abuse (they were going to be
numbered, which SimpleSects are not) so I'm not sorry I had to test
for section depth, but I think they purpose of SimpleSect (a terminal,
unnumbered section) is as legitimate inside Section as it is in
Sect1-5 and we ought to put it back.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <> | Life always comes to a bad
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | end.--Marcel Aym\'e
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |
