Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 06:25:22PM -0000, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> During GDP we experimented with various headings for
> the levels below @subsection and I thought we had
> standardised on @unnumberedsubsubsec with @node and
> a menu entry.  At least this is used in pitches, which I thought was the 
> gold standard for formatting.

Yes, that's the standard for the NR.

> Much of the LM was written before this policy was instated,
> so other forms tend to be used there, like @subsubheading
> and others which just use a @address@hidden one line
> paragraph, and as the LM hasn't yet been revised these
> non-standard formats are still there.

In terms of the ToC presentation, I like the way the LM looks
(knowing that it's different from the NR), with the exception of
3.3.4.

> The specific problem with the examples quoted in LM 3.3.4 is that they 
> use @unnumberedsubsubsec without an accompanying
> @menu entry and @node, so they are formatted differently
> in the ToC.

IMO, the problem is that 3.3.4 uses a fourth level of subdivision.
I would rather see the two "Setting..." subdivisions turned into
@subsubheading instead.

Remember that if we have
x.y.z
   x.y.z.a
   x.y.z.b

then some people will assume that x.y.z contains nothing useful,
especially in info or html.  That's why I'm so hard on "don't put
any real info in the chapter heading, the section heading, or the
subsection heading" in the NR.


I have no clue if this is explained in policy.txt, but it should
be.  Each manual is consistent with itself; it doesn't matter if
different maunals have different levels of divisions.
(the upcoming "Developer's Guide" will probably only have two
divisions -- chapter and section -- for example)

Cheers,
- Graham