Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Issue about a statement regarding paragraph #125

Open
niruvt opened this issue Feb 4, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Issue about a statement regarding paragraph #125

niruvt opened this issue Feb 4, 2021 · 2 comments

Comments

@niruvt
Copy link
Contributor

niruvt commented Feb 4, 2021

In section 02 of lesson 04 we have the following line.

We can go further: the next one 'down' is \paragraph, but almost always that's too much 'detail' in sections.

Does it sound like a value judgement? IMO only explaining the effect of this command is a more neutral way of doing it. Why would the reader need the information given by the second half of this statement?

@josephwright
Copy link
Contributor

Experience suggests that a lot of newer users of sectioning, both in LaTeX and word processors, tend to 'over section'. I think the idea of this comment was to guard against that. However, I do see the point: perhaps a better 'warning' here would be the objective one that \paragraph is a sectioning command rather than meaning 'start a new section'.

Thoughts?

@niruvt
Copy link
Contributor Author

niruvt commented Feb 4, 2021

Experience suggests that a lot of newer users of sectioning, both in LaTeX and word processors, tend to 'over section'. I think the idea of this comment was to guard against that.

In general experienced users have a lot of good suggestions and points that can help newer users in typesetting their documents better, so can we have an "extra" chapter for such suggestions? There can definitely be many more suggestions than only this one.

perhaps a better 'warning' here would be the objective one that \paragraph is a sectioning command rather than meaning 'start a new section'

Yes. This sounds objective (and better 😉).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants