Nicolas Goaziou wrote:
> Sebastien Vauban writes:
>
>> Question: are the level-1 headlines always visible, all of them
>> I mean? I know that's the case as of now, but wondered if it'd be
>> good to hide the ones which are not significant. Not a very sharp
>> advice on this, though.
>
> I have no strong opinion about this, but I think it would be odd if
> they were invisible. After all, this is the basic structure of the
> document.
Yes, that's why I'm not so pushy about it. OTOH, it's nice to hide them
when you have a lot of level-1 sections -- I remember that being asked
here by someone.
But, once again, for me, it's not that important.
>>> "if required"/"if needed" means the entry will only be shown if
>>> point is within the entry (i.e., not on the headline). Thus, for
>>> example, `canonical' and `full' only differ when match is on
>>> a headline, since only latter will show the entry.
>>>
>>> I think this is enough, but I can add more views if needed.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> My /personal/ preference is to see the ancestors, so that I can know
>> which path lead to the entry, and avoid confusion in case some "sub
>> sub sections" are repeated in many different "sub sections".
>>
>> With your proposal, I then only have the choice between `lineage',
>> `full' and `canonical', while I'd like something which would give me:
>>
>> * H1
>> * H2
>> ** Sub 2
>> *** Sub sub 2
>> Text
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> I can add `ancestors' view, which would basically be `lineage' without
> siblings.
That'd certainly be good -- and match my current Org config.
And, if I may, to be sure we are somehow "symmetrical", it'd be good to
have as well:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* H1
* H2
** Sub 2
*** Sub sub 1
*** Sub sub 2
Text
*** Sub sub 3
*** Sub sub 4
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
That is "ancestors" + the siblings of the leaf entry.
Best regards,
Seb
--
Sebastien Vauban
