On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 07:58:11PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> 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?
I fully agree with you on the principle. However, since there is no
easy way to have those nodes referenced when there are automatic menus,
I wanted to propose something for those nodes. Now, it could also be
possible to consider that, for now, until there are better possibilities
for unstructured/topics structured manuals (backlinks, thematic
menus...), it is up to the user to make sure that these appear in
manually crafted menus.
--
Pat
