David Masterson <dsmaster...@icloud.com> writes: >>> #+begin_example >>> -,* Top level headline >>> +,* Top (or first) level headline >> >> IMHO, this sounds like "top" and "first" are two different things. Maybe >> it is my non-native English. > > In keeping with the rest of the example, how about: > > * First (AKA top) level headline
Why not simply * First (top) level headline? >>> #+vindex: org-export-headline-levels >>> - Set the number of headline levels for export >>> - (~org-export-headline-levels~). Below that level, headlines are >>> - treated differently. In most backends, they become list items. >>> + Set the last headline level for export as a headline >>> + (~org-export-headline-levels~). For children of that level, >>> + headlines are treated differently. In most backends, they become >>> + list items. >> >> I am not sure how I feel about "children of that level". Does it mean >> headings having `org-export-headline-levels' level that are also a >> children of some other heading? I feel that there is a potential >> confusion in such phrasing. > > I'm not sure I understand: > + outlines are fundamentally parent-child relationships. > + a top level header has no parents -- all other headers have 1 parent. > + links between headers are not parent-child relationships. You said "children of that level". What about grandchildren? It is not clear what happens at deeper levels from your new wording. Say, org-export-headline-levels = 3 *** Headline 3 **** Child 4 - treated differently ***** Child 5 is not "children of that (3) level"; not clear what to do > + maybe I should've said "children of headlines at that level" ?? I think that there might be the same confusion I tried to explain in more details above. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode maintainer, Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>. Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>, or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>
