M.Canales.es wrote:
> El Jueves, 29 de Marzo de 2007 18:44, matthew escribió:
>
>> My personal preference would be to have the 'Up' link point to a
>> per-chapter index,
>
> I suppose that you meant per-chapter TOC, right?
>
> I agree that that's the most logical target for the "Up" links.
>
>
El Jueves, 29 de Marzo de 2007 18:44, matthew escribió:
> My personal preference would be to have the 'Up' link point to a
> per-chapter index,
I suppose that you meant per-chapter TOC, right?
I agree that that's the most logical target for the "Up" links.
I think to remember (not full sure) t
matthew wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:25:14 -0700, "Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Looks OK to me. I don't really like that huge longindex.html. But
>> that's just my vote. We should probably wait until Matthew gets back
>> before making a final decision.
>
> Well, I'm still on
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:25:14 -0700, "Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks OK to me. I don't really like that huge longindex.html. But
> that's just my vote. We should probably wait until Matthew gets back
> before making a final decision.
Well, I'm still on vacation. After several
