From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Julius_M=c3=bcller?= Subject: Re: Feature Proposal: Titled Paragraphs Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:50:17 +0200 Message-ID: <8df91ed0-912f-70f8-a4b3-b80a12bd53de@gmx.net> References: <3eb58af3-c03b-4225-ec31-15321c05ceff@gmail.com> <87o8y7sigg.fsf@ucl.ac.uk> <87h83zy28j.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33519) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iNXt7-0006QD-AC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:50:30 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iNXt6-0001Es-27 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:50:29 -0400 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:34221) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iNXt5-0001EA-KY for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 03:50:28 -0400 Received: from [192.168.175.209] ([87.139.53.30]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MSKuA-1iYWFb0nJA-00Sf5A for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2019 09:50:23 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87h83zy28j.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-GB 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" To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Am 23.10.19 um 16:18 schrieb Dominik Schrempf: > I agree with this proposal. At some point I already asked if the followi= ng > structure is possible: > > #+begin_example > * Title > ** Section I > Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Donec hendreri= t tempor > tellus. Donec pretium posuere tellus. Proin quam nisl, tincidunt et, mat= tis > eget, convallis nec, purus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis > parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Nulla posuere. Donec vitae do= lor. > Nullam tristique diam non turpis. Cras placerat accumsan nulla. Nullam r= utrum. > Nam vestibulum accumsan nisl. > > Another paragraph that is not related to Section I, but doesn't deserve = a > section title. Another paragraph that is not related to Section I, but d= oesn't > deserve a section title. Another paragraph that is not related to Sectio= n I, but > doesn't deserve a section title. Another paragraph that is not related t= o > Section I, but doesn't deserve a section title. > #+end_example > > With titled paragraphs, this document structure could be achieved. Only if you are very restrictive about it, as you hit a fundamental problem of org markup here, a problem it shares with (La)TeX, HTML, all printed books I'm aware of, and a lot of other formats. Org and (La)TeX only markup the start of a section, not its end. Thus it would be difficult to tell your construct apart from other kind of structures. Contrary to your view, in the (La)TeX-world \paragraph is usually seen as just another hierarchical level of document structuring. It is a heading (with a weird default of not standing on a line of its own), and it does NOT solely belong to the one paragraph it starts. In fact, with your view, (La)TeX's \subparagraph macro would not make any sense at all. That means, adding \paragraph in your sense will break document structure the moment you also have nesting deeper than 3 (or 4 for book-like formats). Julius