docbook: Need more than 5 sects in an article ...
Subject:
Re: Need more than 5 sects in an article ...
From:
Dan York ####@####.####
Date:
5 Jul 2001 18:23:32 -0000
Message-Id: <20010705142303.L14100@e-smith.com>
Armin,
> I've just half-finished an article I wrote using DocBook V4.1. When
> parsing it jade says that 'element "SECT6" [is] undefined'. My article
> explains every single mouse click the reader has to do, and when I
> tried to restructure the document I couldn't manage to stuff it all in
> 5 sections ..
Are you aware that the <sectx> tags are *structural* tags rather
than *numerical* tags? By that I mean it sounds to me from your
note like you are trying to have ONLY five sections in your
document... corresponding to <sect1>, <sect2>,... <sect5>.
In DocBook, you are NOT limited to five sections - you can have as
many sections as you want. You *are* limited to five levels of
DEPTH. The typical way someone writes a DocBook file is like this
(indentation provided purely for illustration purposes):
<article>
<sect1>
<title>First section</title>
</sect1>
<sect1>
<title>Second section</title>
<sect2>
<title>Subsection 1</title>
</sect2>
<sect2>
<title>Subsection 2</title>
</sect2>
</sect1>
<sect1>
<title>Third section</title>
</sect1>
<sect1>
<title>Fourth section</title>
</sect1>
... and so on...
</article>
You can keep on having many, many <sect1> blocks inside of your
document. Likewise you can have many, many <sect2> blocks inside
of each <sect1> block.
The way the other sections work is as subsections of a higher
level section. <sect2> tags are inside of <sect1>, <sect3> inside of
<sect2>, <sect4> inside of <sect3>. More like a classical outline:
I.
A.
B.
1.
2.
C.
II.
A.
1.
a.
b.
c.
2.
3.
B.
C.
III.
IV.
A.
B.
And so on... the <sectx> tags relate to the depth of each tag. I think in all
the documents I've written, I personally have never needed to use more than a
<sect3>. I don't recall ever using a <sect4> or <sect5>.
Now, if you are really doing something so indepth that you are using five
levels of nesting, then yes, like Greg mentioned, you would have to
extend the DTD, but I would **strongly** suggest avoiding this.
Did this help?
Dan
--
Dan York, Director of Training ####@####.####
Ph: +1-613-751-4401 Mobile: +1-613-263-4312 Fax: +1-613-564-7739
e-smith, inc. 150 Metcalfe St., Suite 1500, Ottawa,ON K2P 1P1 Canada
http://www.e-smith.com/ open source, open mind
