On Thu, 30 Mar 2006, Taco Hoekwater wrote: > Aditya Mahajan wrote: >> <--- On Mar 30, Taco Hoekwater wrote ---> >> >>> * The broken eq reference (at least IMO this is a bug) >>> \starttext >>> \placeformula[eqn1] >>> \startformula \startalign[n=1] a\\ \stopalign \stopformula >>> See \in[eqn1] >>> \stoptext >> >> I am not sure that this is a bug. Infact, I am not behaviour is >> expected. >> \placeformula[eq1] >> \startformula \startalign[n=1] >> a \\ >> b \\ >> \stopalign \stopformula >> What should \in[eqn1] refer to? The first eqn, the second, or both? > > Both, perhaps. But it could as well take the first one, or the last. > My rationale is: if there is a label given by the user, then > referring to that should resolve into something that is a valid link. > It is definately inconsistent to discard a supplied label because it's > contents may be unresolvable.
I agree on that. The label must refer to something. However, explaining what it refers to can quickly get confusing. The numbering should remain consistent with or without the label. \placeformula[eq1] \startformula \startalign \NC a \NC b \NR \NC c \NC d \NR[+] \stopalign \stopformula The first equation should not be numbered. But then this is something like the "ugly loose label" in latex. And what about \placeformula[eq1] \startformula \startalign \NC a \NC b \NR \NC c \NC d \NR \stopalign \stopformula The numbering should be consistent with or without the label. Which means that there should be no numbering. What should the label refer to now? Aditya _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list [email protected] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
