Henning Hraban Ramm said this at Mon, 13 Jan 2003 21:14:30 +0100:
Hans, you planned to make \nomarking configurable, that one can use it with our without dots. Is it already in the beta? Actually I need it without dots.
gimme a keyword ...
Do you mean this? \hidetext[..,..=..,..]{ text } where = *all*,list,marking replace = *dots*,space \setuphidetext[..=..] (as above) perhaps the "text" part suggests a more general mechanism than this is. \hideheadpart ? \hideheadtext ?
\nomarking hides headline texts in headers, \nolist does the same for lists (toc),
Yes, now that I know what those commands do :), I'm a bit confused at how they interact. I can imagine wanting to hide the same or overlapping text in headers/footers and ToC's, which is why I suggested a command spanning both.
but they dont't simply hide the text, but places an ellipsis (\dots{}).
1. I'd like to use \nomarking and \nolist without any marking of the hidden text. 2. redefining the commands is no ConTeXty way, I'd like some \setup... 3. There was a hint to redefine the commands with \space, bit it didn't work; perhaps because I normally use them together. x. The stops of \dots are generally a bit too much spaced.
Enough keywords? :-)
BTW: Adam Lindsay asked the same.
Huh. yes, I guess I did. sorry I didn't pay better attention to your thread earlier. adam -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Computing Dept, Lancaster University +44(0)1524/594.537 Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/593.608 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-