Message-Id: <9209110923.AA17144@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To:  David Carlisle's message of Fri,
              21 Aug 92 11:12:14 BST <9209110949.aa21285@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 92 09:59:11 BST
From: ajcd@DCS.ED.AC.UK
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
To: Multiple recipients of <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Subject:      sectioning units lower than \subparagraph
Status: R


>From:        David Carlisle <carlisle@uk.ac.man.cs>
>
>I personally would not like to have new names for these subheadings,
>as I have enough difficulty remembering when to use paragraph.
>(Lamport mentions that paragraph is an `unfortunate' name but it is
>used for `historical reasons') The only memorable system seems to be
>prepending `sub' to the previous head, so I would go for:
>
>1 chapter
>2 section
>3 subsection
>4 subsubsection
>5 subsubsubsection (aliased to paragraph)
>..
>n {sub}{n-2}section

I would prefer a nested begin/end pair for sections (\begin{section}[title] ...
\end{section}) with the normal \section, \subsection, etc., commands as
abbreviations for a \begin{section} with the appropriate implicit end tag for
the previous section.
You could then move text around or add levels and not have to rename all of
the \section commands. It also makes more sense in terms of structuring the
document; it seems rather strange to have nearly everything else done by
environments and sections done by start tags. End of section markers, etc.,
are also easier to introduce if you have an \end{section} part to put them in.
There is also no problem with naming further subsection levels.

a.
--
Angus Duggan, Department of Computer Science,	| I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam.
University of Edinburgh, JCMB,			| JANET:  ajcd@uk.ac.ed.dcs
The King's Buildings, Mayfield Road,		| VOICE:  (UK) 031 650 5126
Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, Scotland.	                | INET: ajcd@dcs.ed.ac.uk