/ Terry Allen <tal...@sonic.net> was heard to say: | - Simplesect came before section, I think. Am I wrong?

No. Which is to say, yes, simplesect came before section.

| - Section's goal was absolute genericity (if not generousity) | below the Chapter or Article level | - it was not a part of the goal to enable Simplesect | | So while we probably just forgot about Simplesect, it's not | inappropriate that we didn't allow for it. If we'd thought | about it, we might well have left it out intentionally. | | Does someone want Simplesect in Section, or does the question | arise from stylesheet exercises (anyone remember Czerny?)?

I wanted a terminal section of a document to be formatted differently. Making the terminal sections SimpleSects looked like an easy way out. In the end, what I had in mind was tag abuse (they were going to be numbered, which SimpleSects are not) so I'm not sorry I had to test for section depth, but I think they purpose of SimpleSect (a terminal, unnumbered section) is as legitimate inside Section as it is in Sect1-5 and we ought to put it back.

Be seeing you, norm