Hi Ihor, Because your reply is shorter, you get my first response šŸ˜›. >> [Renaming parts of the Hierarchy] > I am against renaming this. We should rather improve the syntax document > keeping the key concepts consistent with Elisp code. This is certainly something to be conservative about, but I think some small tweaks could be beneficial. See my comment below. > Org parser distinguish two principal types of syntax structures: > 1. Elements > 2. Objects > > Neither elements nor objects can intersect their boundaries, but they > can be nested. > > An object is always a part of some element or other object. > Greater element can contain other elements and objects. > Element that is not greater element can only contain objects. A thought has just occurred to me, how about instead of having ā€œelementsā€ which are split into ā€œGreater Elementsā€ and other ā€œElementsā€, what if we simply added the prefix ā€œlesserā€ to the later? I.e. go from āƒ Elements ā€¢ Greater Elements ā€¢ (other) Elements to āƒ Elements ā€¢ Greater Elements ā€¢ Lesser Elements I think having something explicit like this could reduce the chance of confusion. > [Comments on headings and sections] This accords with my reading of the document and the way Iā€™ve implemented things in OrgMode.jl (see ). All the best, Timothy