Re: Re. Summary and thanks

[Loren Castro <lfc -at- SOL -dot- CHINALAKE -dot- NAVY -dot- MIL>]

> The following were follow-on comments to the discussion/summary
> about section/paragraph numbering. Yes, I know there is no
> attribution:

>   >> As you can see, I'm unconvinced, but some of these points
>   >> are worthy of more discussion. I _can_ be persuaded. Any
>   >> more comments, details, rebuttals, clarifications, etc.?

>  > Just a couple more points:
>  > There probably aren't enough fonts and styles to make my
>  > headers unique at so many levels.

> I hope someone wouldn't actually *do* this. Different font sizes
> for headers is okay, to an extent. But to change the font or
> style for each header level is not only excessive, but
> amateurish. (If the comment was meant as a joke, I apologize for
> being a bit slow. :)

----------------------------------------------------------------

No, no.  Not a joke.  It's a statement that using different fonts and styles,
as is customary in non-military documents, is impossible for me when I might
have as many as seven levels of paragraph headings.  Using multiple fonts and
styles is not authorized by the DOD standards, anyway.

While I'm on the subject, we have a fine publications department here that
writes technical publications in a non-military style for our many scientists
and engineers.  They have a style guide that specifies five levels of headings
without the infamous numbering.  They use nothing fancy--just small differences
in page position, bolding, capitalizing, and indenting.  It works for them.
(But of course it's not MILSPEC. <g>)

lfc -at- sol -dot- chinalake -dot- navy -dot- mil