[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections

From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:25:22 -0000


During GDP we experimented with various headings for
the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
a menu entry. At least this is used in pitches, which I thought was the gold standard for formatting.

Much of the LM was written before this policy was instated,
so other forms tend to be used there, like @subsubheading
and others which just use a @address@hidden one line
paragraph, and as the LM hasn't yet been revised these
non-standard formats are still there.

The specific problem with the examples quoted in LM 3.3.4 is that they use @unnumberedsubsubsec without an accompanying
@menu entry and @node, so they are formatted differently
in the ToC.  I'll fix this, but we really need to lay down
clear standards for revisions under GOP. I suggest the following - they look fine in both html and pdf but I can't
check info:

@node Level 1
@chapter Level 1

 * Level 2::
 @end menu

 @node Level 2
 @section Level 2

   * Level 3::
   @end menu

   @node Level 3
   @subsection Level 3

     Most of the text goes here

     * Level 4
     @end menu

     @node Level 4
     @unnumberedsubsubsec Level 4
Long subsubsecs go here, so they appear in the Toc
       Each has a separate html page

 or  @subsubheading Level 4 [no menu entry]

       Short subsubsecs go here, don't appear in the ToC
       Grouped in one html page


----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival" <address@hidden>
To: "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Reinhold Kainhofer" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:45:38AM -0000, Trevor Daniels wrote:

Graham Percival wrote Monday, December 29, 2008 12:31 AM

I see sub^3 in LM 3.3.4.  Those are the only ones, though.

Are you sure?  I can't find any in fundamental.itely.

Line 2011.  Yes, they're @unnumberedsubsubsec rather than
@subsubsec, but they still stick out in the LM.

Oh wait; those are sub^2, not sub^3.  Still, they're the only two
sub^2 in the entire LM, so IMO they should be changed.

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]