Message-Id: <9209111015.AA17362@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 92 11:12:50 BST
From: CA_ROWLEY@VAX.ACS.OPEN.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:      RE: sectioning units lower than \subparagraph
Status: R


Angus wrote:

> 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 got it: no problems, as an option rather than the "only way to do
it".  But that does not preclude having the different levels given
explicit names, or levels, eg \begin{section}[level=A], as another option, with
as you suggest abbreviations and implicit end-tags etc.

Thus I think (but this could be wrong??) that there is no need for
"standardised names" for the levels, except possibly within the
"standard styles", but do they need more than 4 levels??

Nelson Beebe also pointed out, at the mini-workshop we held in
Portland, that when incorporating an article into a book, it would be
useful to be able to set up local mappings from "author's tags" to
"document elements".  This also requires that the names are not
hard-wired to levels.


chris