Re: Numbering

[Robin Griebel <rgriebel -at- IS -dot- ALLTEL -dot- COM>]

In a message dated 95-10-25 10:59:05 EDT, jposada -at- NOTES -dot- CC -dot- BELLCORE -dot- COM (John
Posada) wrote:

>Would I have been able to put a 2.1 if I hadn't used a 2.2?

Loren Castro <lfc -at- SOL -dot- CHINALAKE -dot- NAVY -dot- MIL> wrote
> 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.

Beverly Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL> added:

>Having come up through the clerical ranks 20 years ago, one of
>the first things pounded into my head was that in government
>writing, if you have a paragraph 1 (or a.) you *must* have a
>paragraph 2 (or b.). As someone else alluded to in a post, this
>is probably an archaic rule begging to be broken.

I don't agree that the "rule" is archaic.  If you are tempted to use 2.1 but
not 2.2, you probably need to rethink your 2.0 heading and combine it with
2.1.  Headings should help users find information as quickly as possible.
Having a heading just for headings sake doesn't provide users with any
additional information.  IMHO, the fewer words you can use to effectively
communicate information, the more useful and concise the documentation will
be.  Just another opinion to add to the pot.

Robin
rgriebel -at- is -dot- alltel -dot- com