docbook: Re: Docbook questions
Subject:
Re: Docbook questions
From:
"John R. Daily" ####@####.####
Date:
19 Nov 2003 18:29:45 -0000
Message-Id: <200311191829.hAJITiAD018423@ms-smtp-01-eri0.ohiordc.rr.com>
At (time_t)758307100 Saqib Ali wrote:
> ...or import that specific section in another document, just by
> using XPath.
But now we're at cross-purposes. It's easier to find the
section, but harder to import it, because we could be attempting
to import a <sect1> into a <sect2> context.
IIRC, there's now a standard way to perform an "import as"
operation, but all nested sections will have to be renamed as
well!
I wouldn't be surprised to see <sectN> dropped from DocBook as
part of the contemplated major refactoring; I seem to recall Norm
expressing the opinion that, were he to start over from scratch,
he'd only include <section>. Unfortunately, I can't find a
reference to that email, so that might be wishful thinking. :-)
If we're that concerned about being able to identify specific
block elements, putting meaningful id attributes on them would
make extraction more robust.
(This really should move to docbook@. CC'ing, and setting
followups there.)
-John
