Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:10:45 +0200 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Alberto Mijares <amijaresp@gmail.com> Cc: doc@freebsd.org, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Upgrading to DocBook 5.0 Message-ID: <CAF6rxgnL8JSSq8tfTu9mBKLA9qXdR_Mgvr-At0bYSM61kwFcxA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGZBXN8dLmf6iuCpD4cw5zbOP-NLj%2BRqqxtndRa9rAvScSo3Ag@mail.gmail.com> References: <519FA4FE.4030305@FreeBSD.org> <51D3E051.5070506@FreeBSD.org> <CAGZBXN8dLmf6iuCpD4cw5zbOP-NLj%2BRqqxtndRa9rAvScSo3Ag@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Alberto Mijares <amijaresp@gmail.com> wrote: > IMHO, is a good thing to keep a visual clue of the level you are going > down while writing. So, <sect[123...]> should be kept, I think. top posting, really? > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 3:56 AM, Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@freebsd.org> >> One more thing to discuss: shall we maintain the sect1, sect2, ... elements >> or just use section? How would this be rendered in HTML? Does this change anything? -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnL8JSSq8tfTu9mBKLA9qXdR_Mgvr-At0bYSM61kwFcxA>