On 12/24/21 1:48 PM, Denis Maier via ntg-context wrote:
Anyway, I agree that a solution via hierarchy levels would be nice.
That's what I'm hoping to achieve. I'm not familiar enough with low-level ConTeXt to do something like this but it seems like it ought to be possible.
You don't do that. If you provide default a default sectionlevel scheme, you'll know what toc:2 means. If a user uses a different scheme provided via #+Context_Section_Levels you can use that to adjust the meaning of toc:2. But if a user uses the default setting toc:2 should be fine. Does that make sense?
I understand. The issue I see is that this introduces a coupling between section structure and table of contents that could be confusing for users, and also makes the interface more complicated by adding another keyword.
I am trying to take advantage of the flexibility of ConTeXt for most of the configuration, because a user is more likely to be familiar with ConTeXt than with my specific elisp module.
Jason ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
