Lars Hellström writes:
 > [snip]

 > This suggests you're open to using a different object type in some 
 > cases? 

yes indeed, there in so point in believing 'one type fits all' as Chris put
it, but I believe in 'one standard type should make a good standard and fits
many'

 > Indeed, that's not a bad idea: A document class with _very_ 
 > special heading needs can be expected to use its own object type for 
 > headings (in addition to the basic definition of instances, this would 
 > require redefining all sectioning commands and defining new templates 
 > for the new type, but it is perfectly doable). Packages meant to 
 > configure standard headings will then not work off the self for this 
 > class, but it is still as configurable as the standard headings.

if you need a very special heading type then you would need to define it (whic
has a result means that you would need to provide your own templates for it)
but the machinery would still work. and depending on how you choose to do it,
you might end up with a collection of templates for that type whic hare then
exchangeable between themselves and the classes between themselves.
 > 
 > If we're clear that completely bypassing a subsystem such as the 
 > heading templates is OK also in LaTeX3 (though this comes at the cost 
 > of having to reimplement a bunch of stuff yourself), then it's not the 
 > end of the world if there are things that the standard heading object 
 > type cannot accomplish. It's better that it does 90% of all things well 
 > and elegantly, than that it does 99.99% of all things with an API only 
 > wizards can comprehend.

right
frank