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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040728213909.GA94208>