Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:39:09 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@FreeBSD.org> To: Ceri Davies <ceri@FreeBSD.org>, doc@FreeBSD.org Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: <section> vs. <sectN> Message-ID: <20040728213909.GA94208@gothmog.gr> In-Reply-To: <20040728205248.GI424@submonkey.net> References: <20040728205248.GI424@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-07-28 21:52, Ceri Davies <ceri@freebsd.org> wrote: > [snip about <sect1> vs. <section> in docbook sources> > > I'll note here that nearly all of our documents use #2 already; I am > working on one of the ones that doesn't. des@ has committed changes to his PR related articles that substitute stuff like this: s/sect[1-9]/section/ See, for instace, rev. 1.22 of doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/problem-reports/article.sgml I'm not sure if it was a matter of personal taste or if he had something else in mind. I'd like to hear what he has to say too before deciding for or against some style rule.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040728213909.GA94208>