<section> vs. <sectN>

[Ceri Davies]

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:35:55PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday 30 July 2004 10:15 am, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:52:48PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > > Which of these do we prefer?
> > >
> > > 1) <section>
> > >      <para>foo</para>
> > >      <section>
> > >        <para>bar</para>
> > >      </section>
> > >    </section>
> > >
> > > 2) <sect1>
> > >      <para>foo</para>
> > >      <sect2>
> > >        <para>bar</para>
> > >      </sect2>
> > >    </sect1>
> > >
> > > This is basically a style issue, as DocBook does the same for both, so
> > > whatever the outcome it should probably be added to the FDP.
> > >
> > > I'll note here that nearly all of our documents use #2 already; I am
> > > working on one of the ones that doesn't.
> >
> > I sense a lack of consensus, so I won't change this particular document.
> > Thanks all,
> 
> ?? It seems that the consensus is for 2).  The only person in favor of 1) is 
> DES on the basis that <sectX> is deprecated.  A quick check to see if it is 
> indeed deprecated or not should be sufficient to clear this up.

Sorry - I got thrown by Denis' first response, which made the score 3 to
2.  I don't see any evidence at DocBook.org to suggest that either form
is deprecated.

Ceri
-- 
It is not tinfoil, it is my new skin.  I am a robot.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc/attachments/20040802/810f09db/attachment.sig>