Craeg,
> Wow! Thanks for your answer, it sounds like exactly what I am looking
> for.
>
You're welcome; I'm glad it might be useful.
>
>
> I was thinking of making one small tweak: it just
> so happens that all of the sections that need inline
> titles have no child sections-- so I could use simplesect for them.
>
> Using simplesect might have an advantage in that you
> could apply the customizations to it alone and leave
> the sectN and recursive section rules un-customized.
>
> What do you think?
>
Using simplesect may be a good way to go, since it
would keep things separate. I suspect that you
might get away with using Bob Stayton's example
just replacing sect3 with simplesect. It's worth
trying, and Bob's example is a bunch simpler (though
I'm not 100% sure if it's simpler because he avoided
recursive sections, or because my sample is inelegant;
but either way, there's a lot less you need to copy
into your customization:).
BTW, if you use simplesect you do need to be sure that
you only put simplesects at the level of the hierarchy
you need (in the source), since you'll get a run-in
heading on every simplesect, even if it appears in a
different level in the hierarchy.
Dick
