Re: chapters

[Ali Abdin <aliabdin aucegypt edu>]

* Owen Taylor (otaylor@redhat.com) wrote at 22:31 on 12/08/00:
> 
> Ali Abdin <aliabdin@aucegypt.edu> writes:
> 
> > * John Fleck (jfleck@inkstain.net) wrote at 16:41 on 12/08/00:
> > > Ali -
> > > 
> > > I don't think your suggestion of handling <chapter> the same as
> > > <sect1> is a problem. I've put together another test kit that includes
> > > four documents that use chapters:
> > 
> > Well - you see, I don't want to go ahead and add a whole shit-load of code
> > only to find out that <chapter> behaves differently than <sect1>.
> > 
> > So what I would like to know is - why is <chapter> used? When you come to
> > write a doc, why would you pick <chapter> instead of <sect1>?
> 
> If your toplevel element is <book>, then it contains chapters, and the
> chapters contain sect1's
> 
> If your toplevel element is <article>, then it contains sect1
> directly.
> 
> That's enforced by the DND. No more complicated than that. 
> They are definitely _not_ the same, but perhaps might be treated
> similarly in the HTML - probably each should get a new HTML page, and
> maybe each should have an entry in the TOC.
> 
> Norman Walsh's book (online at docbook.org even), is good for
> answering this sort of question.

Uggh - if you can have <sect1>'s underneath a <chapter> it won't be an 'easy
hack' as I thought. I think the problem would be in the TOC - but it /could/
cause adverse effects on other part's of the code.

I'll have to think about this one :)