Re: Design Document XML resurrected (partial revert of r19836)

Branko Čibej wrote:
> It looks good, mostly. I think might want to update the embedded license
> statement.

Agreed - it's a mess at the moment, claiming copyright of "1999-2004" in
one place, and "2000-2006" in another.

> And I don't uderstand why the section divisions have both
> "id" and "title" attributes; I thought "id" was enough to make the TOC work?

It is. The "title" attributes are inherited from Karl's initial version
(though I prepended a # on their values) - they serve to cause tooltips
to appear showing the fragment identifier if you hover over a section.

That seemed a little weird to me, but I didn't rip it out, assuming
someone had done it deliberately.

>> Once we are happy, I intend to make a sweep through design.html fixing
>> up the indentation - when I do so, should I work to a textwidth of 70,
>> 72, or 79 ?
>>
> 79 is prime. :)

Max.