On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:42:57 -0400, Syd Bauman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> ... Each time we want to tag a cross title, we have to begin a new
>I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in that I don't read German nor do I
>actually know for sure what a crosstitle is. But it strikes me
>immediately that perhaps the following makes more sense, and is a bit
>easier to encode, too. Here I've encoded the "section" divisions as
>lying side-by-side, rather than nesting inside each other.
Stepping back a bit, the original posting strikes me as showing a not
uncommon confusion about the respective functions and rules of numbered and
unnumbered divisions. The first poster seems to have assumed that
unnumbered divisions, like numbered ones, must be tessellated.
Looking at the Guidelines again, I think this is one of several places
where they are on the one hand clear and precise, but on the other hand
liable for that very reason to be misunderstood by readers who are trying
to take it all in.
The relevant part of 7.1 (I'm citing 1999 rev. of P3) reads:
"Two alternative styles are provided for the marking of these neutral
divisions: numbered and un-numbered. Numbered divisions are named <div0>,
<div1>, <div2>, etc., where the number indicates the depth of this
particular division within the hierarchy [...] Un-numbered divisions are
simply named <div>, and allowed to nest recursively to indicate their
OK: "allowed" couldn't apparently be clearer, but the original poster is by
no means the first person who has apparently read it as "required". There's
rather a lot of compressed assumed understanding in the gap between those
two last sentences.