Re: section continuation

[Heinz Tuechler <tuechler@gmx.at>]

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote/hat geschrieben on/am 29.12.2022 09:57:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 05:01:33PM +1100, Tim Cross wrote:
>>
>> <tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:
>>
>>> As far as I am concerned, I don't think the feature is important
>>> enough to complexify Org, but (a) I see that there are people who
>>> really want it (and offer myself as sparring partner to bounce ideas
>>> off) and (b) Org is chock full of features I'd rather not have,
>>> but others need badly. Software is like that :-)
>>>
>>
>> I agree. While I can understand it is a feature some users may want, it
>> certainly isn't one I'm interested in and I continue to be very
>> concerned about the feature growth and increase in complexity I see with
>> org.  I fear we are losing one of the best features of org - simplicity
>> and easy customization for individual needs.
>
> Agreed, so far.
>
>> I find the straight-forward
>> nature of a tree structure much simpler to work with than one which will
>> be less tree like and more directed graph like.
>
> Strongly disagree.
>
> Both are trees (that's why I prefer to talk about "document model".
> It's only so that in Org, only the first child of a section node
> can be text, the following must be subsections. In "XML" you just
> can intermix subsections and text (actually: any kind of subnodes).
>
Agreed. I think that "allow certain nodes to only have one text element
at the very beginning" is an arbitrary choice.
Inconvenient, but logically cleaner would be to allow for text either
only in leaves, or in any place of the nodes.
The latter appears more natural to me, as it would allow for connecting
words between sub sections and closing remarks at the end of a section.
Usually, one would circumvent the problem by inserting a connecting text
at the end of subsections, although this would offend the hierarchy.
best regards, Heinz