On 07/06/05, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am using it semantically.
== Major Header
(=== generic explanations) // hidden header
==== quick explanation 1 // which applies to all sub-header sections
==== quick explanation 2 // which applies to all sub-header sections
=== Sub-header 1
=== Sub-header 2
I don't want that first "===" header to show because it breaks up the
flow:
it's not uniform with the rest of the "===" headers.
Well, logically it *is* "uniform with" those headers, because it's at
the same level. I think I agree with those saying that you shouldn't
"skip" heading (or rather, section) levels in this way. In general,
nothing but the very introductory lead-in of an article should be
headerless, assuming headers are going to be used at all.
Consider the following example which has an "implicit" sub-head which
I guess you'd call "2.0". Is the text at D on a par with that at A or
that at B, C and F? In other words, does it belong to section "2" or
section "2.0"? Surely the clearest structure is obtained by simply
rearranging the text to make the answer explicit.
== Head 1
A
=== Sub-head 1.1
B
=== Sub-head 1.2
C
== Head 2
D
==== Sub-sub-head 2.0.1?
E
=== Sub-head 2.1
F
However, if it can be done without too much of a hack, I guess a
feature that numbers as though such "implicit" headers were actually
there would be reasonable as a better guess at user intention.
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]