Section heading commands/styles are inconsistent

[David Purton]

I realise a mailing list is the place for this - but it is still waiting approval from Launchpad - Ignore the email that I sent out, since it doesn't allow reply all like I hoped.

We need to figure out the best way to handle section commands and their names:

Especially, should \section apply to Primary Headings or First Level Headings.

The SBLHS Student Supplement has this to say:

    "The top margin is two inches for the first page only. There are two blank lines between the title
    and the text (or subheading if there is one). The left, right, top, and bottom margins are one inch.
    The first pages of chapters are formatted like the primary heading."

There is no mention of chapter headings in the student supplement. Are they just the same as a Primary heading, expect starting on a new page and with a 2in top margin? Or should a Primary heading be considered as a chapter heading (an thus always start on a new page)? This seems silly though, since there is no mention of chapter numbering. Perhaps the \chapter command could be used to create a heading the same as a primary heading but with CHAPTER n on the First Line and starting on a new page.

In terms of an essay, it makes sense to use \section as the first level heading.
    - But should this point to an SBL Primary Heading or an SBL First-level heading?
    - If it points to a First-Level Heading, how should the table of contents be formatted?
        - The student supplement indicates that APPENDIXES and the BIBLIOGRAPHY would appear at
          the same level as an SBL Primary Heading, but this would be odd if an essay does not have any
          Primary Headings.
    - An essay will usually have a bibliography and may have and appendix. These titles look most similar
      the SBL Primary headings. Is this an indication that one would expect the main headings in an essay
      to also be Primary Headings?
        - additionally, it makes most sense to use \section for appendixes, but would this create confusion if
          a seemingly different level of heading is generated than is the main document.

Does that give a starting point for discussion?

[Pete Myers (petemyers)]

I think that a chapter heading should be formatted sbl primary, and sections should be formatted sbl first.

An essay doesn't have chapters, hence, no primary headings would appear in the document.

I think that's consistent with the Bibliography and Appendices being formatted at primary, as, they're not just sections of the essay, they aren't "part" of the essay. Which is what the sbl student handbook seems to demonstrate.

So, an essay should look like this:

\begin{document}
\maketitle % formatted at primary level
Text
\section{Formatted at 1st level}
Text
\section{Formatted at 1st level}
Text
\appendix
\section{formatted at primary level}
Text
\section{formatted at primary level}
Text
\bibliography % formatted at primary level

That gives an output consistent with sbl guidelines I think - the only problem is that the LaTeX level commands are inconsistent from the document to the appendices. in the document \section marks a new section, but in the appendices \section marks a new appendix.

Is that just a problem with LaTeX convention though?

[David Purton (dcpurton)]

Ok. I think I could be persuaded to go this way.

What about if we leave \part as you have it now, and add a \chapter which is the same as \part except that it starts a new page with a 2in top margin?

\chapter could produce a heading like the Appendixes:

              CHAPTER 1
    THIS IS THE TITLE OF CHAPTER 1

The problem of the table of contents is *less* significant, since you would be less likely to use it in an Essay, than, say something like a Thesis, which would have chapters. However, the student supplement does ask for a table of contents for anything over 15 pages, which could conceivably happen for a longer essay. But then perhaps the exact choice of headings and styles could be up to the user in these cases. So long as we provide \part and \chapter it should be ok. I would recommend formatting \chapter in the table of contents in the same way as appendixes (CHAPTER 1: CHAPTER TITLE).

As far your comments on Centering and creating the 2in top margin, I agree with you that it should be consistent. My development has been a bit haphazard and it would be good to have a macro that could be called that just worked. Using the \vrule hack along with {\centering } could still be the easiest way to do things. I've noted a number of occasions when \afterpage{\topskip=0in} fails for various reasons. The macro could also include \thispagestyle{plain} too.

[Pete Myers (petemyers)]

Hi David,

Could you just explain to me what the issue with the Table of Contents is, 'cos I'm not sure what teh potential problem could be in the future.

I'm not totally wedded to my suggested implementation above just yet, as you might have a good point about the ToC... I just don't understand what it is! :)

Also - about the macro idea for pages with a 2in margin at top. It's a good idea in principle, but, all I was saying was that in implementing new code, I tried to replicate the way things were already being done, rather than introduce new concepts. If it isn't broken, let's not fix it, and so I'd suggest not trying to "standardise" the implementations unless we really need to. Partly because different parts of the document work slightly differently anyway due to quirks in LaTeX.

[David Purton (dcpurton)]

The point abut the ToC may not be too significant.

Imagine an essay which does not use \part.

The ToC will look like this:

Maybe it looks ok - but it seems slightly strange to have all sections indented until you reach the APPENDIXES.

               CONTENTS

   A first level sub heading 1

   Another first level sub heading 2

   A second level sub heading 4

   Another second level sub heading 5

   A final first level sub heading 6

APPENDIX 1: SOME APPENDIX TITLE ....... 8

APPENDIX 2: DIFF APPENDIX TITLE ...... 10

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 12