Re: Section doesn't allow SimpleSect?

[Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>]

/ Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net> 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 <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | Life always comes to a bad
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | end.--Marcel Aym\'e
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |