[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order"
From: |
Francisco Vila |
Subject: |
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order" |
Date: |
Fri, 21 May 2010 16:51:40 +0200 |
2010/5/21 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Francisco Vila <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 2010/5/21 Graham Percival <address@hidden>:
>>> There's an automatic tool to fill in menus if there's a
>>> @menu
>>> @end menu
>>> see the CG for details. "scripts to aid doc work" or something like that.
>>
>> I've tried it and doesn't work, menu is not filled with
>> @unnumberedsubsubsec names. Probably only @nodes are taken as menu
>> entries, as existing menus contain section names which have a @node
>
> err... yes. My previous email was unclear: yes, we need a @node name.
> In fact, our doc policy specifies that we must use @node names
> everywhere, for precisely this reason. However, in some cases this
> *will* change the html splitting in a way that isn't appropriate.
My understanding (you know where does it come from :-) is that only
numbered sections produce splitting. So, no danger of new files
everywhere as long as nodes are unnumberedsubsubsec.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com
- broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/20
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/20
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Francisco Vila, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order",
Francisco Vila <=
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Jean-Charles Malahieude, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", James Lowe, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/21
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Graham Percival, 2010/05/23
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Trevor Daniels, 2010/05/24
- Re: broken links for "next section in reading order", Mark Polesky, 2010/05/24