Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > 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?
That's okay too. >>>> #+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, I get the point, so I guess the appropriate term is "descendants". In most of my compsci training, we talked about parent-child relationships in a broad way to mean "parent and ancestors" and "child and descendants", so I made an assumption that I shouldn't. I'll put a new patch together tomorrow. Thanks for the input. -- David Masterson
