From: Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl>
To: tomas@tuxteam.de
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Is the cascading logic of outlines a feature, or a design bug?
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 07:40:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878risrpyd.fsf@mbork.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y6q0JYWHQLUxZzq9@tuxteam.de>
On 2022-12-27, at 10:00, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 08:21:28AM +0100, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > At first it seems surprising that there are those two perspectives
>> > and there's no "right" or "wrong", as the OP seems to assume.
>>
>> FWIW, I think LaTeX also got this "wrong" (and perhaps surprisingly, XML
>> "right";-)). AFAIR, ConTeXt (which I haven't used for several years, so
>> I might be mistaken) does "TRT" here.
>
> LaTeX picked it up from TeX which picked it up from... print (more
Hm. It's been decades since I used plain TeX on a daily basis, so
I don't remember exactly, but it seems to me that plain TeX doesn't even
have sectioning macros...
> specifically from academic print). Which has been optimised for a
> couple o'hundred years.
Well, yes, though one might argue that it's only a local optimum;-).
> Donald Knuth was mathematician and computer scientist (and pretty
> fastidious with the smalles details), so I'd assume his choice of
> this "flavour" of document model for TeX was pretty conscious, not
> an accident.
Actually, this is much stronger argument than it might seem.
>> OTOH, I agree that it looks surprising, and we mathematicians (and CS/IT
>> people) would like to have a nice, tree-like structure, but I suspect
>> that not allowing to continue the parent section after the subsection
>> ends is a wise decision. I highly suspect this would be very confusing
>> for 99% people, which might be precisely the benefit the OP is asking
>> about.
>
> You might not like it -- but I stay by my assessment that there isn't
> a "right" or "wrong" here.
Well, I was a bit tongue-in-cheek here - I meant "right" in the
mathematician/computer scientist mind, which is, let's say, a very
peculiar type of mind...
> The most important thing, IMHO, is to be aware of those two models
> (most of us stumble unexpectedly into it and go "WAT?" -- although
> it has made it to the FAQ by now :)
>
> It isn't difficult to model the one with the other. I already proposed
> having one canonical heading meaning "back to that level", say dash
> or dot, like so:
>
> * General animals
> Some text about general animals
>
> ** arthropods
> spiders and things
>
> * -
> More about animals in general
>
> ** vertebrates
> so-and-so
>
> (You could even do with the space alone, but playing with significant
> trailing spaces is asking for trouble: i'd go for some unobtrusive char
> unlikely to be a heading text for itself).
+1 for avoiding significant trailing spaces, and agreed.
> Now for that to be useful, you'd have to gather enough users who
> like the idea and use the convention. It's a communication medium,
> after all :-)
Fair point. And frankly, I find this unlikely to happen. As I said,
for me the main argument against "continuation sections" is that they
would probably be /extremely/ confusing to most readers.
Best,
--
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-28 6:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-26 6:47 Is the cascading logic of outlines a feature, or a design bug? abq
2022-12-26 7:51 ` tomas
2022-12-26 10:12 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-12-26 17:23 ` abq
2022-12-26 17:32 ` tomas
2022-12-26 17:36 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-12-26 18:37 ` tomas
2022-12-27 7:21 ` Marcin Borkowski
2022-12-27 9:00 ` tomas
2022-12-28 6:40 ` Marcin Borkowski [this message]
2022-12-28 7:28 ` Heinz Tuechler
2022-12-28 9:29 ` tomas
2022-12-26 12:38 ` Max Nikulin
2022-12-26 17:03 ` abq
2022-12-27 16:02 ` Max Nikulin
2022-12-28 1:52 ` Samuel Wales
2022-12-28 7:14 ` Stefan Nobis
2022-12-28 7:21 ` Samuel Wales
2022-12-28 8:45 ` Greg Minshall
2022-12-28 9:13 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-12-28 9:34 ` Greg Minshall
2022-12-28 9:34 ` tomas
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=878risrpyd.fsf@mbork.pl \
--to=mbork@mbork.pl \
--cc=emacs-orgmode@gnu.org \
--cc=tomas@tuxteam.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).