Open muzimuzhi opened 4 years ago
Mo-Gul
commented
4 years ago I personally use ssec for labeling \subsection (and sssec for labeling \subsubsection). At least also using a different prefix for \subsection may also help, because these are also not numbered and thus \ref shouldn't be used.
To "mark" unnumbered (sub)sections I therefore suggest the prefix u (for unnumbered) to the prefix. Thus, \subsection* should have a prefix usec.
muzimuzhi
commented
4 years ago @Mo-Gul Use sec for numbered sections only, and usec for all the other unnumbered sections and subsections?
Since you've done change "Subsection~ --> Section~" in https://github.com/pgf-tikz/pgfplots/pull/361/commits/33b4bf687879f1f1c21debe0b71defaecac79fd1, there would be no difference between writing \nameref and \pageref to unnumbered sections and subsections. It would always be "see Section~``\nameref{usec:...}'' on page~\pageref{usec:...}'".
Mo-Gul
commented
4 years ago I am not sure if I got your point 100% so I'll try to explain in other words.
I did the "subsection" change because of consistency reasons. There was this single instance only, although there are plenty of references to subsections, but naming them everywhere else just "section". So either name all subsections "subsections" or none.
You are right then in the written words there would be no difference between references to unnumbered sections and subsections. But we could change this as well if this would be beneficial. Personally I would be fine with both (as long as we do it consistently).
So far I would only favor your suggestion
Use sec for numbered sections only, and usec for all the other unnumbered sections and subsections?
if this would mean significant less work. Assuming I would have to do the work (which I happily would do, because that would be one of the things I could do and you could focus on stuff that I can't do) I would (have to?) go through each and every "sec" label anyway.
Also the risk of breaking something is very low by just changing the label prefixes in a first step, because I would store a reference PDF before changing them and would compare/diff it afterwards with the final PDF. Only when these two PDFs are identical I would start changing the \refs with the \nameref/\pageref stuff.
At present I can't see were using your approach would save some time. Do I miss something?
muzimuzhi
commented
4 years ago So far I would only favor your suggestion
Use sec for numbered sections only, and usec for all the other unnumbered sections and subsections?
if this would mean significant less work. Assuming I would have to do the work
By analyzing all the .aux files of pgfplots.tex, there are currently
\newlabel lines in .aux files)So the amount of required work is not much different (between using (u)sec, (u)ssec, (u)sssect and using sec and usec only).
muzimuzhi
commented
4 years ago You are right then in the written words there would be no difference between references to unnumbered sections and subsections. But we could change this as well if this would be beneficial. Personally I would be fine with both (as long as we do it consistently).
The written words can be automatically changed by macros.
Here is a first draft showing the auto-ref possibilities. It is not flexible yet.
\autonameref(*){<label name>} is provided\@currentHref names: section<level>*.<num>. For example \section* has section1*.<num> and \subsection* has section2*.<num>.cleveref package which provides a flexible way to config the range of hyperlink, because I am not familiar with its code base.Usage example
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{pgffor}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{colorlinks, linkcolor=blue}
% patch codes, see full implementation
\begin{document}
\section{title}\label{sec}
\subsection{subtitle}\label{sec2}
\section*{starred title}\label{usec}
\subsection*{starred subtitle}\label{usec2}
\parindent=0pt
\foreach \i in {sec, sec2, usec, usec2} {
see \autonameref{\i} on \autopageref{\i},
see \autonameref*{\i} on \autopageref{\i} \par
}
\end{document}
Edit: An extra level of abstraction based on \autoref and \autonameref can even get rid of using different label prefixes (sec and usec). For example, it's possible to provide a \smartAutoref that \smartAutoref{sec:...} will work like \autoref and \smartAutoref{usec:...} will work like \autonameref.
It seems this comment leads the discussion to another direction: to make manual high quality, write more codes to make machines do more logic and provide easier markup interface to humans, or formulate more rules that humans should obey? In general a balance between complexity of code logic and length of rules should be kept, but in current specific label-prefix situation, I vote for "more code, less markup rules".
Edit 2: Added usage example of \autonameref*.
Mo-Gul
commented
2 years ago ping @muzimuzhi, can you/we finish this?
Keeping a complete and consistent label naming scheme would require unnecessary amount of work, but some kind of consistent is helpful for manual writing and maintaining.
General
:as separator, for example\label{sec:number:printing}.Discussion
pgfplotsrequired in label names? See\label{sec:pgfplots:lineplots}vs\label{sec:lineplots}.Suggestion
chaChapter~\ref{...}done in PR #361
secssec?\refkeycmd