<section> vs. <sectN>

[John Baldwin]

On Friday 30 July 2004 10:15 am, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 09:52:48PM +0100, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > Which of these do we prefer?
> >
> > 1) <section>
> >      <para>foo</para>
> >      <section>
> >        <para>bar</para>
> >      </section>
> >    </section>
> >
> > 2) <sect1>
> >      <para>foo</para>
> >      <sect2>
> >        <para>bar</para>
> >      </sect2>
> >    </sect1>
> >
> > This is basically a style issue, as DocBook does the same for both, so
> > whatever the outcome it should probably be added to the FDP.
> >
> > I'll note here that nearly all of our documents use #2 already; I am
> > working on one of the ones that doesn't.
>
> I sense a lack of consensus, so I won't change this particular document.
> Thanks all,

?? It seems that the consensus is for 2).  The only person in favor of 1) is 
DES on the basis that <sectX> is deprecated.  A quick check to see if it is 
indeed deprecated or not should be sufficient to clear this up.

-- 
John Baldwin <jhb at FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve"  =  http://www.FreeBSD.org