-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of John Maddock Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:21 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Process discussions
It shouldn't require huge changes. For the most part, the anchor names are based on the name of whatever they're for. There are just a few cases that aren't handled.
I had a look at the math docs and a lot of the anchors are generated for bridgeheads (headings). So I tried changing quickbook to give these ids and it made a huge difference. The change is on the increasingly inappropriately named branch at http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/branches/quickbook-filenames/
Thanks Daniel!
Paul PS I note another reason to perhaps use sections more and headings less is the effect on indexing. (If I haven't misunderstood - again -) with John's autoindexing (or any other indexing system for that matter) when viewing html, the index term only gets the user to the right *section*. If you have pages and pages of stuff using many headings (rather than splitting into sections), then the user may have search through many pages past many headings to find what is sought. This is easy enough using the web browser find, but a hassle, and risks finding items with the same word, but not the item to which the index term referred. (With pdf native indexing, the index term hyperlink gets to the right *page*, so it's not such an issue. But we should be structuring for both html and pdf). Of course, sections also appear on the Table of Contents, which will become bigger, perhaps bloated even, if you have too many (sub) sections. Another issue is that I find it too easy to get my section and endsects mismatched. (And I find that the diagnosis of mismatching brackets isn't always user friendly). More sections will give me even more chance of getting in a muddle!