Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Apr 22 2005, Reiner Steib wrote: > >> ,----[ M-x apropos-variable RET font-latex.*fontify RET ] >> | font-latex-fontify-script >> | Variable: If non-nil, fontify subscript and superscript strings. >> | font-latex-title-fontify >> | Variable: Whether to fontify LaTeX titles with varying height [...] >> `---- >> >> It would be nice if both options would be named >> font-latex-fontify-* or font-latex-*-fontify. I'd prefer the >> former, not only because we had a misspelling of >> `font-latex-title-fontify' upto 11.54, so >> `font-latex-title-fontify' only appeared in a single release. > > I don't know why Peter used the word "title" in this variable and > faces. "section" would be more appropriate, I think.
Nitpickingly, it might be something more like "sectioning" or "section heading", since the section is what comes behind it. We have also texinfo-heading-face (from outside of AUCTeX) and LaTeX-section-heading (a function). > Ralf recently changed[1] the doc string for the faces to "Face for > sectioning commands at level %s" (from "Face for LaTeX titles at > level %s."). I agree to that change and additionally propose to > rename `font-latex-title-fontify' to `font-latex-fontify-section' > and `font-latex-title-N-face' to `font-latex-section-N-face'. > > Opinions? Objection? I think "heading" might be more appropriate. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
