Re: [NTG-context] subject kills bookmarks?
On 15-8-2010 7:05, Steffen Wolfrum wrote: Hi, Why does subject kill bookmarks when used as first entry? See attached example. (I am not sure whether I misunderstood the structural logic that's used for bookmarks.) Well, they assume some structure indeed and start from a parent that has a higher order. Normally one will have more structure (introductions or whatever) and never start with a dangling subject. In a toc this goes unnoticed as there is no tree visualized there. I fixed it using a horrible hack that took me a whole afternoon of experimenting to cook up so this is the last thing I will do about bookmarks for a long time (esp such weird cases). Having a dangling one in for instance an appendix will show the problem as one will never know where it actually belongs to then. A better way would be to have a dedicated 'inject level zero bookmark here' command but it has a very low priority. Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl - ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] subject kills bookmarks?
Am 16.08.2010 um 20:06 schrieb Hans Hagen: On 15-8-2010 7:05, Steffen Wolfrum wrote: Hi, Why does subject kill bookmarks when used as first entry? See attached example. (I am not sure whether I misunderstood the structural logic that's used for bookmarks.) Well, they assume some structure indeed and start from a parent that has a higher order. Normally one will have more structure (introductions or whatever) and never start with a dangling subject. In a toc this goes unnoticed as there is no tree visualized there. That touches an interesting question: Who sets structure? Easily I can think you hundreds of books where the author set Preface, Forword, List of Abbreviations and List of Content in a subordinate style. When the main text starts, this style is the same that is used for the second (or third) sectioning level. The same shows up in TOC: if these entries are listed in TOC, they are visually structured (by indentation and font) explicitly as the second (sometimes third) sectioning level. As far as I have understood Hans' answer, the logic for bookmarks (or structured, tagged PDF in general?) works differently: even though the design of these sections (ie. section *headings*!) by the author is intended to be subordinated, nevertheless these section should be structured in a parent/child way: the first section mentioned is meant to be the highest level: Would this map and represent the structure that the author was thinking of? (Thank God it is not me who invented the structure of books and thus has to bear the blame ... and thank goodness we have Hans who manages to transform even the weirdest inputs and specs!) Steffen ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] subject kills bookmarks?
Easily I can think you hundreds of books where the author set Preface, Forword, List of Abbreviations and List of Content in a subordinate style. When the main text starts, this style is the same that is used for the second (or third) sectioning level. The same shows up in TOC: if these entries are listed in TOC, they are visually structured (by indentation and font) explicitly as the second (sometimes third) sectioning level. As far as I have understood Hans' answer, the logic for bookmarks (or structured, tagged PDF in general?) works differently: even though the design of these sections (ie. section *headings*!) by the author is intended to be subordinated, nevertheless these section should be structured in a parent/child way: the first section mentioned is meant to be the highest level: Would this map and represent the structure that the author was thinking of? In a typeset toc it's often quite clear as visual clues are used (indentation, font, vertical spacing, either of not a pagenumber) I have made some quite complex structured docs (tens of different heads at the same level). This goes ok as long as one is in control, but in automated flows with input that can have some components not being present and then also typeset one can have interesting confusing situations. In such cases fonts/spacing in a toc depend on an analysis of the structure (runtime). Hans - Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | voip: 087 875 68 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl - ___ 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://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
