On Sat, Jun 20, 2026 at 08:56 (+0200), Pablo Rodriguez via ntg-context wrote:
> On 6/20/26 07:59, Pablo Rodriguez via ntg-context wrote: >> On 6/16/26 15:55, Jim via ntg-context wrote: >>> […] >>> Can anyone authoritatively confirm […] >> Sorry, but right now my mind only allows me to offer just a >> “trust–me–bro” type of confirmation (I cannot even imagine how the >> specification could even work with undisplayed outlines). > Well, now it comes an attempt to give an authoritative confirmation. > Given the following sample: > \nopdfcompression > \setupinteraction[state=start] > \placebookmarks[chapter,section,subsection] > %[chapter,section,subsection] > \starttext > \startchapter[title=Chapter] > Hi! > \startsection[title=Section] > I don't know > \startsubsection[title=Subsection] > Good point. > \stopsubsection > \stopsection > \stopchapter > \stoptext > If you compile it as it is, you may use a tex editor to search for > "Count -1" (that is, chapter has a hidden child and section has another > closed one). > If you remove the comment, those entries will read `/Count 1`, which > means that both chapter and section have a visible children. > All this comes for my understanding of table 153 of the PDF spec > (https://opensource.adobe.com/dc-acrobat-sdk-docs/pdfstandards/PDF32000_2008.pdf#nameddest=G11.2095911). > “Count” is the last key entry from that page. > BTW, not being English my mother tongue, I cannot get what “immediate” > adds to the expression ”immediate children” in this context. > I mean, isn’t the distinction between children (since all children would > “immediate” in this context) and other (further) descendants? > Just in case it might help, Pablo, Thanks for that interesting follow-up. I should say that my original question was more about "intended ConTeXt LMTX behaviour" than "what does the PDF spec say", but this was interesting too. I claim English as my mother tongue, as well as a background in graph theory (perhaps my grad supervisor would disagree :-) and I am thinking that someone has got a very liberal view of what "children" refers to, and thus needs to use "immediate" to refer to what I (and evidently you) would think of as "children". Cheers. Jim ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : [email protected] / https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman3/lists/ntg-context.ntg.nl webpage : https://www.pragma-ade.nl / https://context.aanhet.net (mirror) archive : https://github.com/contextgarden/context wiki : https://wiki.contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
