From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: [RFC] Simplify `org-show-context' configuration Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:43:00 +0100 Message-ID: <87iof1vsh7.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> References: <87lhjxh8q4.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <86y4nx3py8.fsf@example.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45389) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YNdjV-0001tj-V9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:42:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YNdjS-0001u9-Nf for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:42:17 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:51225) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YNdjS-0001u2-Gl for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:42:14 -0500 Received: from public by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YNdjR-0003gk-GN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:42:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: <86y4nx3py8.fsf@example.com> (Sebastien Vauban's message of "Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:25:03 +0100") List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Sebastien Vauban Cc: public-emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@plane.gmane.org Sebastien Vauban writes: > Question: are the level-1 headlines always visible, all of them I mean? > I know that's the case as of now, but wondered if it'd be good to hide > the ones which are not significant. Not a very sharp advice on this, > though. I have no strong opinion about this, but I think it would be odd if they were invisible. After all, this is the basic structure of the document. >> "if required"/"if needed" means the entry will only be shown if point is >> within the entry (i.e., not on the headline). Thus, for example, >> `canonical' and `full' only differ when match is on a headline, since >> only latter will show the entry. >> >> I think this is enough, but I can add more views if needed. >> >> WDYT? > > My /personal/ preference is to see the ancestors, so that I can know > which path lead to the entry, and avoid confusion in case some "sub sub > sections" are repeated in many different "sub sections". > > With your proposal, I then only have the choice between `lineage', > `full' and `canonical', while I'd like something which would give me: > > * H1 * H2 ** Sub 2 *** Sub sub 2 Text > > WDYT? I can add `ancestors' view, which would basically be `lineage' without siblings. Regards,