Hi Riki, thanks for the ideas - quite a few things I haven't really thought about.
Am 01.10.19 um 19:54 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck: > > ... > > I do still have some worries of the sort I expressed at > https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/1624#comment:11. A label for a section > really shouldn't be in the section heading itself, from a LaTeX point of > view, though it's natural to put it there in LyX. I've just analysed the available options: a) If a label is put right at the start of a section in lyx, this gives: Lyx-File: ..... \begin_layout Section \begin_inset CommandInset label LatexCommand label name "sec:MySection" \end_inset MySection \end_layout ..... and in exported tex-File: ..... \section{\label{sec:MySection}MySection} ..... This runs fine through my latex compiler, so I guess this is "proper" latex code. b) If a label is put it at the end of the section in lyx, this gives: Lyx-File: ..... \begin_layout Section MySection \begin_inset CommandInset label LatexCommand label name "sec:MySection" \end_inset \end_layout ..... and in exported tex-File: ..... \section{MySection\label{sec:MySection}} ..... Works also as option a). > There's been some> discussion of automatically moving such labels to > right after the> \section command. But, now, many users don't put them > in the heading, so> as not to generate bad LaTeX. Maybe they put > labels at the beginning of> the first sentence. c) The label is placed in the first paragraph past the section. Lyx-File: ..... \begin_layout Section MySection \end_layout \begin_layout Standard \begin_inset CommandInset label LatexCommand label name "sec:MySection" \end_inset blablabla ... more text ... blablabla \end_layout ..... and in exported tex-File: ..... \section{MySection} \label{sec:MySection} ..... I guess option c) is what you recommend to avoid "bad Latex". > So it's hard to tell what's meant to be a 'section' > label. I agree. The good thing is - all variants run perfectly fine through my latex compiler and generate the same result. So, maybe this "bad latex" thing is more a style-issue, but not really a functionality problem. Nevertheless, worth discussing. With the current functionality, the user determines the insert position manually before opening the "Create label" dialog. When a label is now inserted automatically (new functionality), we basically have two choices: 1. hardcode one of the options a, b or c 2. make option a, b or c a configurable option I would be in favour of (1), and would only make this configureable if users request it (avoid configuration option bloat), and further, I would be in favour of option a (mainly, because that's how I write my lyx documents :-) Operation "check, which section/float has already a label": > Possibly we could use the prefix to determine this ("sec:" in> this case), > though any such algorithm will be error-prone. So it's not> that easy to tell if a section 'already' has a label. I would be worried about reliability of such an algorithm as well, especially since we target a multi-lingual community which might use "Kapitel:" instead of section. Variants a and b would be fairly easy to detect (check if a label CommandInset is inside the layout). I would also implement the following rule: if more than one label CommandInset is in a section layout, choose the first. Variant c would be only realiably detected, if the following condition is met: the layout following the section layout must start with a CommendInset of type label -> if so, this label is accepted as existing label for the section. So what happens if the user has placed a label somewhere different? Well, the new cross-reference dialog would not detect the label and offer to insert a new one (in either of the locations discussed above). Then, the document would possibly have two labels, but still would be valid lyx and latex documents. IMHO, not a big problem here. My proposal would be to agree on a "default" label placement position. To get started with the implementation, I'm writing some code to detect which section has a label. Sorry for the long answer, but I guess if this were an easy ticket, it would have been done already :-) -Andreas PS: Riki, thanks for the pointer to the outliner... need to check the code there next!
