On Sat, Feb 15, 2025 at 01:16:13PM +0000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > [...] having an @-command more similar to an @anchor associated to
> > an @XXXheading, or even to another sectioning command may still be a
> > good idea. Indeed, it allows to have a node that contains
> > sectioning or heading commands that can be handled more similarly to
> > sectioning or heading commands associated to a node but in the same
> > output unit.
>
> Yes, exactly – in HTML split mode, `@anchorlabel` (or `@label`, which
> I won't stop advertising :-) plus `@XXXheading` should be on the same
> page as the last `@node` command.
@label could be ok for the command, but it could be confusing as there
is a \label command in LaTeX (which we use for @node in LaTeX output) which
has the opposite meaning: the argument to LaTeX \label is alike to the
argument to @node or @anchor:
We will see this with Theorem~\ref{th:GreensThm}. % forward reference
...
\begin{theorem} \label{th:GreensThm}
...
\end{theorem}
...
See Theorem~\ref{th:GreensThm} on page~\pageref{th:GreensThm}.
(Info node '(latex2e)Cross references', latexrefman project.)
For this reason I think we should avoid @label unless it works
like LaTeX \label.
