From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/9950 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Giuseppe Bilotta Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: In-paragraph display Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:06:53 +0100 Sender: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl Message-ID: <231935513.20021201100653@iol.it> Reply-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1038733593 31532 80.91.224.249 (1 Dec 2002 09:06:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 09:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Return-path: Original-Received: from ref.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.13] helo=ref.ntg.nl) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18IQ3c-0008CS-00 for ; Sun, 01 Dec 2002 10:06:32 +0100 Original-Received: from ref.ntg.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC24E10AE9; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:08:43 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from smtp1.libero.it (smtp1.libero.it [193.70.192.51]) by ref.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D43C10ABF for ; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:07:17 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: from [151.29.140.40] (151.29.140.40) by smtp1.libero.it (6.7.015) id 3DE22B8100295FA2 for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:07:15 +0100 X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62 Beta/17) Business X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-admin@ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13 Precedence: bulk X-Reply-To: Giuseppe Bilotta List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:9950 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:9950 Hello, I'm going to bring the discussion back to a sore point that really needs to be cleared. When dealing with displayed material (equations, itemizations, quotations etc) the following four cases are (or rather should be) different: ============================== Case 1: some text before \startdisplay displayed material \stopdisplay some text after ============================== Case 2: some text before \startdisplay displayed material \stopdisplay some text after ============================== Case 3: some text before \startdisplay displayed material \stopdisplay some text after ============================== Case 4: some text before \startdisplay displayed material \stopdisplay some text after ============================== The reason why they should be different is that (1) in case 1 the display is part of the paragraph which includes both the text before, the displayed material, and the text after (2) in case 2 the display is part of a the paragraph which begins with the displayed material and includes the text after, but not the text before (3) in case 3 the display is part of a the paragraph which begins with the displayed material and includes the text before, but not the text after (4) in case 4 the display forms a paragraph on its own Why is this important? Assume for example that the paragraphs are set to have an indent (\setupindenting[medium], for example) and that the indentnext option is set to true. In this case "some text after" would only be indented in cases (3) and (4), but not in cases (1) and (2), since in cases (3) and (4) it starts a new paragraph while in cases (1) and (2) it is part of the previous paragraph. Is it just an impression of mine, or is it true that this is not the case in ConTeXt? The behaviour in all three cases seems to be the same ... -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta