Re: Re. Summary and thanks

Subject: Re: Re. Summary and thanks
From: Loren Castro <lfc -at- SOL -dot- CHINALAKE -dot- NAVY -dot- MIL>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 13:58:01 -0700

> 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

Previous by Author: Re: Re. Summary and thanks
Next by Author: Re: usage: detail(ed) design
Previous by Thread: Re: Re. Summary and thanks
Next by Thread: Contract: Tech Writers, Illustrators, Artists

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads