On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:04:56AM -0700, Kayvan A. Sylvan spake thusly: > > > Actually you shouldn't use Branches like that. My idea was that the > > inset should be *in* the Section layout paragraph, not *contain* it. > > As you see, also the numbering doesn't work. > > Why shouldn't I want to use branches like that, though? > > My usage is for a section (or even a Chapter) that is included in one > version (with the branch enabled) and not included in another version. > > For example: Imagine an academic book that has a "Teacher's Enhanced > Edition" where each Chapter contains a section called "Answers to the > exercises" and maybe even an additional Chapter devoted to teaching > methods for the overall material. These would all be inside a > "Teacher Edition" branch inset.
Ah, I see. Yes, this could be useful. John had an example of an enumeration which similarly didn't work in the current paradigm. > > Is there a way to limit what kind of layouts are admitted within a > > particular inset? If so, this is the place to use it. And the inset > > should "inherit" the outside, large Section font. How to do that? > > > > - Martin > > I don't really agree with limiting this. > > It certainly breaks the principle of least surprise. > > The Section numbering on-screen should just continue as normal. In this way, > there might be a discrepancy between what you see on screen and the printed > version (depending on which branches are enabled), but that's not a problem. Yes, I agree -- but how does one achieve that? Once that works, getting the labels in the nav menu to work properly is a small thing by comparison. > > ---Kayvan - Martin
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
