Nicolas Goaziou <m...@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: >> Maybe we can just say "... lesser elements" that cannot contain other >> elements."? Then, we mention that some elements cannot contain objects >> in the description of those elements. > > But then, you do not remove the ambiguity that is condemned in this > thread. The greater element/element and greater element/lesser element > distinctions are equivalent, albeit not identical.
AFAIU, elements = greater-elements ∪ lesser-elements The current syntax draft contains section "Greater elements" defining all the greater-elements and section "Elements" defining lesser-elements However, the word "elements" also refers to all possible elements in some parts of the draft. I propose to remove the ambiguity by referring to members of org-element-greater-elements as "greater elements"; to org-element-all-elements - org-element-greater-elements as "lesser elements"; and to org-element-all-elements as just "elements". > IIUC, you want three terms for elements (I am not even talking about > secondary strings, which can hold objects that are not part of > contents), Yep. > ... and probably two for objects: terminal and non-terminal. Sorry, I do not understand what you refer to here. Best, Ihor
