Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections

[Trevor Daniels]

Carl D. Sorensen wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:52 PM

> On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> wrote:

> > Graham
> >
> > 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 think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're
> the same as for the GDP.  Unless you are proposing different standards for
> the LM and the NR.  If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because 
> I'd
> be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM.  If they apply 
> to
> the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP.
>
> So ignore the rest of my comments if you intend them to apply to the LM
> only.

Yes, NR 1 & 2 are fine.  I was suggesting a slight variation
on them for the LM and later chapters of the NR, since here
a lot of the text does not need to be subdivided or ToC'd.
The formatting of NR 1 & 2 is clear; it is the rest of the
manual and the LM which is rather variable at present and I
wanted to have a clear policy written down before these sections
are firmed up.

Trevor