Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Jan 01, 2009 at 03:52:42PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 1/1/09 11:25 AM, "Trevor Daniels" <address@hidden> 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.
> 
> I think we already have clear standards for revision under GOP -- they're
> the same as for the GDP.  Unless you are proposing different standards for
> the LM and the NR.  If that's the case, then ignore my comments, because I'd
> be fine with your standards if they apply only to the LM.  If they apply to
> the NR, I think it would be a mistake to undo what we did with the GDP.

Um.  I'm more confused that I was before.  Here's my proposal.

NR - make it all like NR 1.1 Pitches.

LM - make it all like LM 2 Tutorial.  If that means that we have
@subheadings like in LM 2.1.2 Simple notation, that's fine.  But
these @subheadings don't, and shouldn't, make a new HTML and a new
ToC entry.


AU - slated for rewriting anyway.

Cheers,
- Graham