Thanks for sharing these improvements to the Seq field formatting! This looks very useful, especially for systems requiring specific enumeration styles beyond standard outlines.
I did some quick testing and was able to successfully replicate Luhmann-style IDs visually using a format like Seq: <seq: nanana>, which is great.
Your note mentions that the formatting currently doesn’t affect the edit field. This highlights something I think would be a powerful enhancement: would it be feasible to have an option where the formatted sequence ID could be directly entered or used in the edit field?
While I tested this with Luhmann’s style (1a1), the ability to enter/use the formatted ID directly would be valuable for any custom sequence format someone might define using your rules – for example, formats like 1.a.i, I-A-1, or others using combinations of numbers, letters, and specific delimiters.
The main benefit would be allowing users to work consistently with their chosen, meaningful representation within the interface and also leverage these formatted IDs directly for filenames. This would be fantastic for filename-based linking strategies, where the choice of delimiter defined in the format string (e.g., using ., -, or no separator at all) becomes crucial for predictability and system compatibility.
I realize this likely adds significant complexity, particularly regarding parsing various formatted inputs back into the underlying numeric sequence and validating the custom logic (especially with codes like padding nn that might not be directly reversible or uniquely mappable).
Just wanted to share this thought as it would significantly increase the flexibility and utility of the Seq field for various organizational methods. Thanks again for the feature!