Re: [AD] new makedoc tool

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2005-07-13, Elias Pschernig <elias@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 00:41 +1000, Peter Wang wrote:
> > > Yes, and why should we inherit such limits? The exporter to a limited
> > > format would deal with it, but not the source format itself.
> > 
> > What should backends do if they hit the limit?
> 
> They would ignore the upper ones. E.g. a man page will always correspond
> to a heading, and don't care at all in what sections and chapters this
> heading may be. It's like it already works with @chapter.

I don't think dropping content is a valid solution in general.

> Well, the reason I'd like it is that it makes @include easier, in case
> we want to be able to @include something, but at the same time use it as
> standalone file. In my idea, if it uses just @section (and @end), than
> it would work automatically. The first @section woud be the top level
> section when used standalone, and else be whatever subsection it is,
> when included. (@chapter would just be an alias for @section, so also no
> problem.) Didn't think about if it would be confusing. Maybe with
> @include, it's not that much of a problem. And we could easily have
> @chapter, @section, @subsection and so on, but they would just all by
> synonyms.

That would work nicely.  If we name them as @sect1, @sect2, etc. (like
DocBook) then the automatic raising/lowering would seem less strange.
How's that?

Peter