Re: alternative to numbering [a little distracted, but getting there]

["Mark X. Dempsey" <mxd2 -at- OSI -dot- COM>]

Anita, et. al.

Keeping the real purpose in mind is key in such decisions. For example,
the only reason for an individual to prefer a computer calendar over a
paper one is the ease of scheduling recurring appointments.
Nevertheless, software calendar makers made them without an easy way to
schedule "the second Wednesday of the month" until recently. (BTW, is
there an address book manager for Netscape? Netscape mail is less
capable than IE/Outlook, but more stable.)

So, IMHO, the *only* purpose for header numbering (except perhaps the
oxymoronic "military intelligence") is ease of cross-reference.

If you have a cross-reference format that's "Heading on page XX" then
you're doing everything the 1.1.2.3.4.5.99 does in a less robotic way.
If your cross-references in HTML/pdf are links, and visibly so, then you
don't even need this...

Anita Haeems wrote:
>
> Hello Joanne,
>
> I work in a documentation-intensive company where we are also at this
point
> reconsidering the use of numbered headings. In fact, we've had some
> documents with headings to the extent of Section 2.3.7.98.
>
> I'm very interested in the alternatives to this as well.
>
> -Anita.
>
> We are producing two rather large docs (about 700 pages each) that will
> be translated into multiple languages. because of this, management wants
> to move to a numbered heading system - like the military, where the
> Heading 1 is "Section 1", heading 2s are "Section 1.1" heading threes
> are "Section 1.1.1" and so on.
>
> The doc manager would like to avoid this for aesthetic reasons. Has
> anyone used an effective alternative.
>

--
Regards,

-- mailto:Mark -dot- Dempsey -at- osi -dot- com
--
-- Mark Dempsey
-- Technical Publications
-- Objective Systems Integrators
-- 110 Woodmere, Folsom, CA 95630
-- 916.353.2400 x 4777

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=