Message-Id: <9209111005.AA17334@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 11:18:15 IST
From: Shelly Glaser 972 3 6408060 <GLAS%TAUNIVM.bitnet@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
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


In a message dated Fri, 21 Aug 92 11:12:14 BST, David Carlisle writes:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 92 17:12:53 CET, Don Hosek <DHOSEK@HMCVAX.CLAREMONT.EDU>
> said:
>
>Don> Could we get a ruling on what level 6, 7 and beyond heads should
>Don> be called in LaTeX 2.09? This is related to what they should be
>Don> called in LaTeX 3.0, but not inexorably linked (i.e., it would be
>Don> nice if they're going to have the same names in both versions,
>Don> but if LaTeX 3 completely changes naming of sectioning commands,
>Don> then I'd rather have it be more consistent with today's
>Don> interface).
>Don>
>Don> -dh
>
>Firstly what do the `real' typesetters/publishers call these?
>
>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
>
>or alternatively
>switch to paragraph as now but then just carry on with
>{sub}{n-5}paragraph
>
>David

I  suggest that  we have  something that  can be  used without  extensive
mental arithmetic, and has a name that  does not look as if it belongs in
a $...$ environment, like:

\header{0} equivalent to \part
\header{1} equivalent to \chapter
\header{2} equivalent to \section
\header{3} equivalent to \subsection
\header{4} equivalent to \subsubsection
\header{5} equivalent to \paragraph
\header{6} equivalent to \subparagraph
\header{7}  no LaTeX 2.09 equivalent
\header{0}  no LaTeX 2.09 equivalent

Future LaTeX should also recognize the 2.09 names, which will allow it to
process old  files, and  are somewhat  easier to  remember (at  least for
levels 0--4).   Somewhat similar  convention is used  by SCRIPT  (the IBM
mainframe  TeX equivalent,  which comes  either  from Waterloo  or in  an
"almost" compatible version, from IBM).

As  for  what  "real  typesetters"  use,  I  understand  that  the  LaTeX
equivalent is GML -  at least for those who have  not been "currupted" by
WYSIWYG options such as SciTex machines and PageMaker-like programs.

                                        Yours
                                                            Shelly Glaser

PS: I  was trying  to use "Grammatik for Windows" with  Latex files,  (as
    ASCII) and  though it does work,  sorts of, it get  confused by LaTeX
    commands.   Is there  a Grammatik  "rules" file  for LaTeX  somewhere
    around?