Sebastien Vauban <sva-n...@mygooglest.com> writes: > Nicolas Goaziou wrote: >> Sebastien Vauban writes: >> >>> Question: are the level-1 headlines always visible, all of them >>> I mean? I know that's the case as of now, but wondered if it'd be >>> good to hide the ones which are not significant. Not a very sharp >>> advice on this, though. >> >> I have no strong opinion about this, but I think it would be odd if >> they were invisible. After all, this is the basic structure of the >> document. > > Yes, that's why I'm not so pushy about it. OTOH, it's nice to hide them > when you have a lot of level-1 sections -- I remember that being asked > here by someone. > > But, once again, for me, it's not that important.
I'd prefer not to do that -- it's easy to get confused, and we've got narrowing when we need to really focus. >>>> "if required"/"if needed" means the entry will only be shown if >>>> point is within the entry (i.e., not on the headline). Thus, for >>>> example, `canonical' and `full' only differ when match is on >>>> a headline, since only latter will show the entry. >>>> >>>> I think this is enough, but I can add more views if needed. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>> >>> My /personal/ preference is to see the ancestors, so that I can know >>> which path lead to the entry, and avoid confusion in case some "sub >>> sub sections" are repeated in many different "sub sections". >>> >>> With your proposal, I then only have the choice between `lineage', >>> `full' and `canonical', while I'd like something which would give me: >>> >>> * H1 >>> * H2 >>> ** Sub 2 >>> *** Sub sub 2 >>> Text >>> >>> WDYT? >> >> I can add `ancestors' view, which would basically be `lineage' without >> siblings. > > That'd certainly be good -- and match my current Org config. > > And, if I may, to be sure we are somehow "symmetrical", it'd be good to > have as well: > > * H1 > * H2 > ** Sub 2 > *** Sub sub 1 > *** Sub sub 2 > Text > *** Sub sub 3 > *** Sub sub 4 > > That is "ancestors" + the siblings of the leaf entry. This is the view I'd be interested in having, as well. Thanks! Eric
