On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 01:07:38PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 02:01:13PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> > I don't see the purpose of this as documents should use a sectioning
> > command, not a @*heading command after a node.
>
> I disagree, I think that @*heading command after a node is a natural
> setting for a manual organized in topics that do not follow a sectionning
> tree. Like it can be done with dita/mallard/DocBook topics. In the
> interpretation that @node is an output unit delimiter, it should be
> possible to have content linked to and from nodes to follow different
> organization than a sectioning tree.
I can understand the idea of using @heading for unstructured manuals,
or parts of manuals. @heading would provide the heading for the node
and possibly also the xrefname for linking to the node.
However, what doesn't make sense to me is this:
> * it is used for node automatic directions, and I propose to do that
> by considering that the @*heading command is below the previous non
> @*heading command
In unstructured parts of manuals, methinks, the textual position of nodes
does not imply anything about the structural relation between the nodes.
So whereas with @section nodes:
@node One
@section Section One
@dots{}
@node Two
@section Section Two
@dots{}
- the structural relation between nodes "One" and "Two" is given
by juxtaposition, that is the fact that one follows the other in
the input file (and so nodes "One" and "Two" are presumed to be
subordinate to some superior @chapter, the "next" node for "One" is
"Two", and the "prev" node for "Two" is "One"), no such determination
should be made for the analagous case with @heading:
@node One
@heading Topic One
@dots{}
@node Two
@heading Topic Two
@dots{}
In this example, the nodes kind of float about and aren't structually
related to one node or another.
Does that match your understand of dita/mallard/DocBook topics?
