RE: [Scrollkeeper-devel] Scrollkeeper file format improvements?

[Gregory L. <GLe...@cu...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Mueth [mailto:d-...@uc...]
>=20
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, L=E1szl=F3 Kov=E1cs wrote:
>=20
> > Second the TOC:
> >
> > Functionally JavaHelp and Scrollkeeper files are the same=20
> so there is
> > only a little room for changes with obvious benefit.
> >
> > Scrollkeeper format is:
> >
> > <tocsect1 linkid=3D"intro">Introduction
> >     <tocsect2 linkid=3D"whatisscrollkeeper">What is ScrollKeeper?
> >     </tocsect2>
> >     <tocsect2 linkid=3D"aboutthisdoc">About This Document
> >     </tocsect2>
> >     <tocsect2 linkid=3D"authors">Authors
> >     </tocsect2>
> >     <tocsect2 linkid=3D"scrollkeeperlicense">ScrollKeeper License
> >     </tocsect2>
> > </tocsect1>
> >
> > The numbering of the tocsects caused me tremendous problems while
> > writing the TOC extractor stylesheet (although that was my=20
> first ever
> > stylesheet, it is not that difficult actually). I think we=20
> should get
> > rid of those numbers regardless of other changes. The only=20
> help browser
> > using Scrollkeeper currently that I know of is Nautilus and=20
> it doesn't
> > use those numbers at all. No code change would be needed=20
> there if the
> > numbers go.
>=20
> Sounds reasonable.  I think the reason they are there are=20
> because DocBook
> uses <sect1>, <sect2>, etc.  It would be interesting to know=20
> the reason
> why DocBook numbers their sections.  I suspect it is (a) for=20

DocBook doesn't number it's sections, authors number their sections.  =
Some
authors find it easier to follow the logic when they can clearly see =
that
they're in a <sect3>.  Other authors use <section> everywhere, because =
that
means they can pick up and move sections around more easily.  I'm able =
to
keep track of where I am through the features of my SGML/XML editor, =
rather
than needing to use the tags to tell me where I am.  <section> can also =
be
infinitely recursed, so if you're writing large documents, <section> =
offers
a lot more flexibility.  Ugh, that sounds harsh.  Maybe it's because =
I'm
stuck using Outlook...

> the author,
> since they read and write the markup and having numbers helps=20
> keep them
> from getting confused, and (b) <books>, <articles>, etc. have=20
> strict rules
> on how they can be sectioned.  Neither of these really apply=20
> here, so I
> think we can do away with the numbers if there is any=20
> incentive to do so,
> such as making things simpler.

I'm all for getting rid of numbering of things, and setting up the toc =
stuff
to be infinitely recursable.  Later,
	Greg