[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: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:42:12 -0000

Graham Percival wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 9:26 PM

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.

In terms of the ToC presentation, I like the way the LM looks
(knowing that it's different from the NR), with the exception of

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.

IMO, the problem is that 3.3.4 uses a fourth level of subdivision.
I would rather see the two "Setting..." subdivisions turned into
@subsubheading instead.

Remember that if we have

then some people will assume that x.y.z contains nothing useful,
especially in info or html.  That's why I'm so hard on "don't put
any real info in the chapter heading, the section heading, or the
subsection heading" in the NR.

Yes, the priciple of placing all the real information at
the lowest level visible in the ToC is a good one, but the
example you quote can be resolved in two ways:  you can
either merge everything into x.y.z or you can add a new
first subsection to take the text previously outside the
two lower sections, giving

These two approaches were the ones I outlined in my
first note.  Either would work for LM 3.3.4, but because
the LM is intended to be read linearly I agree with you that the first of these is better in that case.


reply via email to

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