From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp10.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id gFcDJQnlq2O/rwAAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 07:41:13 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp10.migadu.com with LMTPS id aPQuJAnlq2OcGAEAG6o9tA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 07:41:13 +0100 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87A7A1F5D4 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 07:41:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pAQ7D-0002Uz-RG; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 01:40:39 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pAQ7B-0002UE-St for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 01:40:37 -0500 Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([195.110.48.8]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pAQ79-0007he-9r for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 01:40:37 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 585767F4B76; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 07:40:32 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.mojserwer.eu Received: from mail.mojserwer.eu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.mojserwer.eu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WOANGyKwA5bq; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 07:40:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (178235147137.dynamic-3-poz-k-0-1-0.vectranet.pl [178.235.147.137]) by mail.mojserwer.eu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A4E67F74D1; Wed, 28 Dec 2022 07:40:27 +0100 (CET) References: <87cz86qxrc.fsf@localhost> <87ilhyvzi1.fsf@localhost> <87cz85s45j.fsf@mbork.pl> User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 29.0.50 From: Marcin Borkowski To: tomas@tuxteam.de Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: Re: Is the cascading logic of outlines a feature, or a design bug? In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 07:40:26 +0100 Message-ID: <878risrpyd.fsf@mbork.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=195.110.48.8; envelope-from=mbork@mbork.pl; helo=mail.mojserwer.eu X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1672209673; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=/WH04dzl3bVMrZ9lsAY8Qv5I+KtOGz/QlAXZxHtPGYs=; b=GAQgpVc4E138i6j9uMOJH3/ThMlWxWub8td+xTtPOuePoxry7sZFsuowBgqPuRu/lgCGKi qjlOmJQ0aEXwAZIYyYPQRF+miUvSILi1hmfDAn/0th2ChGNQ8Bj/WH4b9ALwHqrcjJJZCE SXktcyrkvn7mIVK4WzZrS+Mcj6nmhWi+elRQ+44TY9u38WdL5OwYagbI34n1NMFjd8vUSD vuVZOLEsmnXXuuQHnHQaqT8E+nYfecxxIJ2ut1E0m+jE6PO7SBZW0D/dd+wfasquaC46IF eSSwUiTE3LZ5zajM2w7CEy88cTo2w49v+MRw97aXMIFVcjjC7XcSPPzvevvSLg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1672209673; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=tnREOcf8qjcZoei3wr59mWuctetC4t6HDPrbrTrb3oOLpdSWZ5XySP1YQHkLKd/bv7IJ8Y L5Gsa34ASClvNl5EmftRb9VA80j3jdHtj08ATuHw6WmA93AwRD7Dt7lfpqkBkReTJjmbm1 jtxMF33gxeyh7yXbw3pASx/4SAJPkn+FTEAdhAkOh//YILR/4KpIIXDEj5nAkxRWIwP026 MQRh00v4xe1OGt9CiUgJai1Cqty98751t+mXM42Zojll5J0iQkJyYK3rP5JayYDBk2U8Ia KDjHHmQgpP27wS6y/WTEAunUJEOB65azzQJKLhJrYIiIrkKkLYEMPmwvC0/pTg== X-Spam-Score: -0.43 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 87A7A1F5D4 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -0.43 X-TUID: 48NQIYIN1wIN 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