On 01/31/2015 11:10 PM, Rob Heusdens wrote: >> [...] >> If you define summary as a duplicate of section, the former will inherit >> properties from the latter. >> >> All you have to do is refine the unwanted features in summary. >> >> A very stupid example: >> >> \definehead[summary][section] >> \setuphead[section][number=no,style=\bf] >> \setuphead[summary][number=yes, style=\it] >> \starttext >> \section{Section} >> \summary{Summary} >> \stoptext >> [...] > > Are you sure that is the way it is supposed to work?
Hi Rob, well, I think this is the way it seems to work in the sample at least (I compiled it myself ;-)). > My interpretation of it would be that: > > First, once you have defined summary with \define[summary][section], at > that moment in time it has the properties set to whatever section has. > > But afterwards, the objects section and summary should lead "seperate > lives" so to speak, and making adjustments to one, should not result in > changes to the other. At least, that is how I understood it to be, and > seems to me logical. If that is not the way it is implemented, I think I might be wrong, but think of it as an XML element and the same element with a class. I know the sample would be stupid: <h1>Heading</h1> <h1 class="part">Part Heading</h1> In CSS, h1.part would inherit every attribution made to h1 (either after or before). If you wanted to have italics and bold for each heading, this would lead to: <html> <style type="text/css"> h1 {font-style: italic; font-weight: normal;} h1.part {font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;} </style> <body> <h1>Heading</h1> <h1 class="part">Part Heading</h1></body> </html> > [...] > \setuphead[section][alternative=text] > \definehead[summary][section] > \setuphead[summary][style=\bf] > > However in the above case, when we change the order of definitions, > section is already changed BEFORE we assign it to summary, and THEN of > course, also summary acquires those properties from section. > > At least such a behaviour would seem to me the most logical and intuitive > behaviour. I didn't expect for summary to behave differently because I > changed section. section and summary should behave like independend > objects. > > But maybe that is NOT the way it works in Context? I think that would be > unintuitive, since it would cause unwanted side effect. Who wants that? I think ConTeXt behaves the opposite way you expected (or at least, this is what I get from trial and error). > But maybe for good reasons I don't quite understand, Context implements > this differently. Hans should know better about that. Coding is actually Greek to me. > At least I think such 'unexpected' behaviour (for me at least, coming from > a programming background it is), should be cleary documented on the wiki. Please, be our guest :-). Greetings, Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________