[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: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: broken links for "next section in reading order" |
Date: |
Fri, 21 May 2010 13:44:27 +0100 |
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.
That's why I haven't told anybody to go around blindly adding @node
everywhere.
If somebody wants to work on making unfinished doc sections match our
doc policy (such as NR 2.1 Vocals, or anything in NR 3 or higher),
let's talk.
Cheers,
- Graham
- 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 <=
- 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", 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