TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Numbering From:John Posada <jposada -at- NOTES -dot- CC -dot- BELLCORE -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:56:29 -0400
John Posada asks about government numbering:
> Would I have been able to put a 2.1 if I hadn't used a 2.2?
> If not, how do I do a 2.1.1 and a 2.1.2 if I hadn't used a 2.2
The basic answer to the first question is yes. That's easy for
me to say because I write to government standards. I didn't like
this style at first, but I'm accustomed to it now, and I think that
it's superior for technical work.
I identify Section 2 (for example) as 2 (or 2.0) <SECTION HEADING>,
and I have no text under this heading if I can help it. That means
that I must have a paragraph 2.1 if I want to write anything even if
I don't have a paragraph 2.2. This might conflict with what we learned
in grammer school, but I like it. It's consistent, and it complies
with the standards.
-------------------------
Hmmm...
It was specificaly BECAUSE of numbering to government standards that I was told
that you cannot have a 2.1 of there is no 2.2
They never even TOUCHED on numbering when I was in grammar school...was that
part of the New Math? (ga-head..tell me you're too young to even remember the
"New Math"
John Posada
Tech Writer
Bell Communications Research
jposada -at- notes -dot- cc -dot- bellcore -dot- com
(908) 699-5839
***I don't speak for my employer and they return the favor***
