question

I tend to use simplesect quite a bit, I find it handy for
providing a 
little break between *untitled* beats.  Admittedly, I am
engaged in 
subverting Docbook for non-technical purposes.  Still, I can
imagine 
instances even in technical documentation where one may need
to break 
the text into two separate sections, albiet without a title.
 So my 
question is: Why are titles required in simplesect?  Is a
section really 
simple if it has its own title?

What I do now is simply use an empty title, and I'm not
averse to 
continuing this, I just thought I'd ask.

thanks,
Dalan Hurst

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribelists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-helplists.oasis-open.org

> Why are titles required in simplesect?  Is a section
really 
> simple if it has its own title?
> 
> What I do now is simply use an empty title, and I'm
not averse to 
> continuing this, I just thought I'd ask.

A section without title... how does it appear? How is it
listed in TOC? 
I guess you just want to graphically separate some major
part of text 
from another.

I would probably re-define a problem as this: The section
*has* a title 
(maybe an empty one), but I do not want that title to be
*visible*. That 
could be done using CSS tag:

.section .titlepage { display: none; }


Viliam Bur

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribelists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-helplists.oasis-open.org

 > A section without title... how does it appear? How is
it listed in
 > TOC? I guess you just want to graphically separate
some major part of
 > text from another.


It would not appear in the TOC as the two beats are
dependent on the 
larger context and not independent units (though they are
independent of 
one another, hence the <simplesect>).  These breaks
are a bit more than 
merely a graphical separation, as I've said there is a
semantic 
difference between these two sections of prose, which, as
you state, is 
normally presented to the reader as whitespace.  However, if
this were 
merely a presentation issue, I would use <para>  with
a role attribute 
and be done with it, but the simplesect (or at least a sect
of some 
kind) is warranted, though, with the empty <title>s, a
little inelegant.

Anyway, I'm fine with the current schema, I just thoguht
I'd see if it's 
possible to get it changed.


thanks,
Dalan Hurst

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribelists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-helplists.oasis-open.org

/ Dalan Hurst <dwebbscreek.us> was heard to say:
| I tend to use simplesect quite a bit, I find it handy for
providing a
| little break between *untitled* beats.  Admittedly, I am
engaged in
| subverting Docbook for non-technical purposes.  Still, I
can imagine
| instances even in technical documentation where one may
need to break
| the text into two separate sections, albiet without a
title.

You can? Why and to what end?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndwnwalsh.com>      | It is seldom that
any liberty is
http://www.oasis-o
pen.org/docbook/ | lost all at once.--David Hume
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee |