Message-Id: <9209240720.AA29665@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Thu, 24 Sep 92 09:05:09 +0200
From: tarjeij@EXTERN.UIO.NO
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: Section command
Status: R


From: Frank Poppe <POPPE@SWOV.NL>
>
>OK - but how would you indicate "one level lower/deeper"?
>I.e., without explicitly specifying the level. Perhaps the optional
>level parameter should not only take 0..n as arguments, but + and - as well?

Sounds very reasonable.

>In that way a whole "tree" of sections and sub..subsection can be moved
>around in a document, without bothering about these commands.

I have used a system based exclusively on the idea (NOTIS WP and TF). It was
rather annoying doing sectioning only in terms of ^sec;, ^secd; and ^secu;, but
if one can mix with "hard coded" sections it might work very well. Particulary
if applied to text that might end up on different levels in different documents.

Greetings,

// Tarjei T. Jensen - if it ain't broken, fix it anyway!
//    tarjeij@ulrik.uio.no       || +47 4 563411
//   Support you local rescue centre: GET LOST!
// Working, but not speaking for the Norwegian Hydrographic Service.