On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 05:02:20PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "Martin" == Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> If you want to take in account branches (or more generally nested > >> textinset), you should do it completely, I can't believe it is so > >> difficult. > > Martin> I think branches are the main problem. We don't really need to > Martin> see footnotes and the like in the ToC. But when using > Martin> branches, e.g., for translating to two languages, all of the > Martin> section header text will be inside one or the other branch > Martin> inset. There is nothing left and the ToC entry will be just > Martin> the number. This is IMHO the only thing that needs fixing. > > I think it would be interesting to try to implement > insettext::addToTOC and make it add call the existing code > recursively. It is probably not that much work.
Probably so. > Then you would have to specialize it for branch (exit early if > inactive) and maybe note (never output anything). I suspect you would have to shortcircuit it for every collapsable inset that is closed. > This is the way I have been wanting to go for numbering, but I never > found the time to actually do it. I think it is much better than an > ad-hoc solution. This is not an ad-hoc solution. It is the ONLY solution that will put in ToC entries for headers that are not inside a branch inset but CONTAIN one or more branch insets. It's the solution to a different problem. And essentially a useability bug fix... a ToC containing only numbers is unuseable for navigation or outlining. > And I am sure there are people who put section > headers in minipages... Sure. That's where _your_ proposed solution is called for. > JMarc - Martin
pgpZnhHlxRP79.pgp
Description: PGP signature
