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