Did you assign Section Layouts that create those tags? Based on your description, it sounds like you assigned the same layout to all sections, regardless of level, and therefore (as instructed) Scrivener formatted them all the same way.
The Section Types are simply labels. They carry no information about how the section should look in your output document. That information is entirely the domain of the Compile Format in general and the Section Layouts in particular.
(Which is, I would add, the point. You might submit a document to one publisher who requires 12 pt Courier bold for all headings, and another who wants a different font and font size for each outline level. You would accomplish this by using different Section Layouts, but the same Section Types. Once you define Section Types appropriate to your content, you don’t need to change them.)
Could you attach a screenshot, please? It’s not possible to assign both “section” and “structure-based” to the same document. If a document has type “structure-based,” then Scrivener will assign a type based on the Project’s default types. (This Scrivener-assigned type will be shown in faded italics in the Inspector.) But if you assign a type, then that overrides whatever the “structure-based” type might be. (A user-assigned type is shown in non-faded standard font in the Inspector.)
Demonstration project and resulting PDF file attached.
For this demonstration, I used hierarchical section numbering, which let me use the same numbering placeholder for all sections and therefore reduced the number of Layouts needed. I revised the Full Indented Outline Compile Format, and assigned section layouts somewhat randomly to demonstrate the possibilities. This is NOT a demonstration of good typographic practice.
I’m not a LaTeX expert, but I suspect you would need to assign a different Layout for each level of (LaTeX) structure that you wanted in the final output. CompileDemo 2022-04-12 17-02.zip (53.6 KB) CompileDemo4.pdf (72.2 KB)
If you don’t want ambiguity, named section types are the way to go, instead of compile by structure. I have five document types inside chapters of my WIP (where P = procrastination), and they’re all at the same level, all of them text documents. Getting the same results by structure would turn the Binder into bad spaghetti.
Or you can use structure until you run into ambiguous or difficult cases and specify section types for the affected documents.
In one of my experiments, yes, to rule out what would happen. I did it because, long ago in the mid-70s I led a team in one of the first word processor developments to use magnetic storage of templates. They operated baseplates connected to Adler and IBM lever-arch and golf-ball output, later Qume daisywheel output. It was very advanced word processing in the day, in which we learned never, absolutely NEVER, mix system settings with output configuration. Setting ‘section’ layouts is a project system setting. Allocating, or patching, a system setting to something else for output formatting relates to print configuration. This experiment was intended to rule out the adverse effects of mixing system/project settings with output config but proved the opposite.
This conversation is a step forward. Thanks! Would you link to documentation that specifically sets out what you indicate please? Also, is there a part in documentation that indicates that if no layout assignments are made then the raw structure-based layout will be used?
In the draft document you so helpfully provided, in Binder under ‘Et tortor’ I add a new document ‘test’ and indent, then two more indented child documents under ‘test’. At first, their Section type does not change in Inspector. Worse, if I indent or back-indent these test documents their section type does not change. But when I highlight any different Binder document, all Section types in the Inspector display their correct hierarchy settings. Accordingly, part of my issue is observing in the Inspector a setting which is not yet updated, and promptly disappearing down a settings rabbit hole! Presuming Scriv devs are using C++ and Javascript, I’ll take a guess at this looking like Inspector Section type variables requiring the Binder to change focus before being updated instead of being updated upon ‘onClick’ or on-movement setting.
Accordingly, one part of my understanding of structure-based layout is now resolved. I now understand something like this: Inspector->Section type: In a structure-based document, new documents will inherit the Section type setting of it’s predecessor. Indenting or moving a document will set it’s Section type under it’s Binder document parent. However, authors may need to click on another document in the Binder then return to the document under observation to see it’s Section type change in the Inspector. To adjust how each Section type prints for this structure-based layout, first set up a Project Format → Section Layouts → layout for output formatting, then Assign Section Layouts → Type to an appropriate layout. Layouts that do not follow a structure based approach, with automatic Section type updating, will require different settings [link to ref in manual]
Incidentally, Latex output for your example (under review)…
Assigning section types is a project setting. Section layouts are part of the Compile format, and are project-independent by design. The center pane of the Compile command brings the two together.
