Allow a Process: to be defined at either the level of Section: or Chapter:, and instantiate as either one depending on the level it was defined at. So the following would be valid: Chapter: Download Download the Server [45] Process: Install Installation [345] Something Else [N, Task] Chapter: Configure Process: Get an account Step One [34]
Added in 0.22.0 Processes can now be at the chapter or section level of a content specification. Processes still cannot contain other sections or processes, they can only contain topics.
I wanted to do this: Process: Tutorial: Existing Content Spec Goals of the "Existing Content Spec" Tutorial [7236] [P:T1] Configure csprocessor for the test server [6240] [T8] List the Content Specs on the server [6230] [P: T8] Check out the "Existing Content Spec" Project [7243] Build the Content Spec to HTML and View the Output in a Browser [7220] Section: Build Features Author Attribution [6327] Author Attribution in the "Existing Content Spec" book [7224] Could we allow this when the sub-Sections do not contain tasks {1}? That would allow digressionary explanations during a Process. Against {1}: that may not be a good information design pattern - interrupting a process with too much explanation. Alternatively, perhaps the Process could end at the first sub-section {2}? If it were {2}, the above would effectively be: <Chapter> <Process> Goals of the "Existing Content Spec" Tutorial [7236] [P:T1] Configure csprocessor for the test server [6240] [T8] List the Content Specs on the server [6230] [P: T8] Check out the "Existing Content Spec" Project [7243] Build the Content Spec to HTML and View the Output in a Browser [7220] </Process> <Section/> </Chapter> where the Process and the Chapter share the same title, or the Chapter inherits its title from the Process... Against {2}: it wouldn't be clear in the content spec where the Process begins and ends if it ends at the first sub-section, unless you know that that's how it works. In the meantime I've left it as a Chapter and manually wired the prerequisites together. Is there a better existing pattern to use?
Closing and setting as current release as no QA was performed by the original reporter. If there is still an issue with this bug still than please re-open it.