From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/94076 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mica Semrick Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Are nested sections possible? Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:43:43 -0800 Message-ID: <85D41ADB-991E-449D-9928-F61591B2C7EC@silentumbrella.com> References: <585b9b9aa484d54b00489590afa2ec17@silentumbrella.com> <56E28371.6040902@gmx.es> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7391283550198491975==" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457685875 26295 80.91.229.3 (11 Mar 2016 08:44:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 08:44:35 +0000 (UTC) To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Mar 11 09:44:21 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from zapf.boekplan.nl ([5.39.185.232] helo=zapf.ntg.nl) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aeIgD-00032I-QE for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:44:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zapf.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AE87F73; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:44:04 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at zapf.boekplan.nl Original-Received: from zapf.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zapf.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CNbztjjUQez3; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:44:03 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from zapf.ntg.nl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by zapf.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E09027F6E; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:44:03 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zapf.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8EB7F6E for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:44:02 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at zapf.boekplan.nl Original-Received: from zapf.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zapf.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cDeMy1HgOKaM for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:44:01 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by zapf.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 344C37F68 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:43:51 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from mfilter29-d.gandi.net (mfilter29-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.160]) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 021C4A80E3 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:43:51 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter29-d.gandi.net Original-Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([IPv6:::ffff:217.70.183.195]) by mfilter29-d.gandi.net (mfilter29-d.gandi.net [::ffff:10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wLs6w5XB93MY for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:43:49 +0100 (CET) X-Originating-IP: 96.229.204.29 Original-Received: from android-1dd7324701492dc5.lan (pool-96-229-204-29.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [96.229.204.29]) (Authenticated sender: mica@silentumbrella.com) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63278A80D5 for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 09:43:48 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <56E28371.6040902@gmx.es> X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Original-Sender: "ntg-context" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:94076 Archived-At: --===============7391283550198491975== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----PK2KA8SLSMMM3S2AC82IYQTQMU7N6C" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ------PK2KA8SLSMMM3S2AC82IYQTQMU7N6C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Pablo, Sorry for the brevity of my original message, it is quite late. I'm working on styling an XML dialect, where nesting can go, and often do= es quite deep, and several different section level elements can be allowe= d to nest within each other. If nested sections were possible, I wouldn't= have to write code to try and figure out how deep a nested is; ConTeXt w= ould know and would number the sections accordingly. -m=20 On March 11, 2016 12:36:01 AM PST, Pablo Rodriguez wrote: >On 03/11/2016 09:08 AM, mica@silentumbrella.com wrote: >> Greetings, >>=20 >> Is it possible to have >> [...]=20 >> render as: >>=20 >> 1. Hey a chapter! >> 1.1 something.one >> 1.1.1 something.one.one >> 1.1.1.1 something.one.one.one > >Sorry, Mica, but which is the gain in nesting sections (whether >possible >or not) over using subsections and subsubsections? > >I can hardly imagine the sense in the point you=E2=80=99re making. (Sorr= y, it >must be my fault.) > >Let me know what I am missing. Best wishes, > >Pablo >--=20 >http://www.ousia.tk >________________________________________________________________________= ___________ >If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry >to the Wiki! > >maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / >http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context >webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net >archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ >wiki : http://contextgarden.net >________________________________________________________________________= ___________ ------PK2KA8SLSMMM3S2AC82IYQTQMU7N6C Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Pablo,

Sorry for the brevity of my original message, it is quite late.

I'm working on styling an XML dialect, where nesting can go, and ofte= n does quite deep, and several different section level elements can be al= lowed to nest within each other. If nested sections were possible, I woul= dn't have to write code to try and figure out how deep a nested is; C= onTeXt would know and would number the sections accordingly.

-m

On March 11, 2016 12:36:01 AM PST, = Pablo Rodriguez <oinos@gmx.es> wrote:
On 03/11/2016 09:08 AM, mica@silentumbrella.com wro=
te:
 Greetings,
 
 Is it possible to have
 [...] 
 render as:
 
 1. Hey a chapter!
 1.1 something.one
 1.1.1 something.one.on=
e
 1.1.1.1 something.one.one.one

Sorry, Mica, but which is the gain in nesting section=
s (whether possible
or not) over using subsections and subsubsection=
s?

I can hardly imagine the sense in the point you=E2=80=99re =
making. (Sorry, it
must be my fault.)

Let me know what I =
am missing. Best wishes,

Pablo
= ------PK2KA8SLSMMM3S2AC82IYQTQMU7N6C-- --===============7391283550198491975== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KSWYgeW91ciBxdWVzdGlvbiBpcyBvZiBpbnRlcmVz dCB0byBvdGhlcnMgYXMgd2VsbCwgcGxlYXNlIGFkZCBhbiBlbnRyeSB0byB0aGUgV2lraSEKCm1h aWxsaXN0IDogbnRnLWNvbnRleHRAbnRnLm5sIC8gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5udGcubmwvbWFpbG1hbi9s aXN0aW5mby9udGctY29udGV4dAp3ZWJwYWdlICA6IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cucHJhZ21hLWFkZS5ubCAv IGh0dHA6Ly90ZXguYWFuaGV0Lm5ldAphcmNoaXZlICA6IGh0dHA6Ly9mb3VuZHJ5LnN1cGVsZWMu ZnIvcHJvamVjdHMvY29udGV4dHJldi8Kd2lraSAgICAgOiBodHRwOi8vY29udGV4dGdhcmRlbi5u ZXQKX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18= --===============7391283550198491975==--