Re: Learning Manual TOC missing subsubsubsections

[Trevor Daniels]

Graham Percival wrote Thursday, January 01, 2009 9:26 PM


> > 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.

Yes, the priciple of placing all the real information at
the lowest level visible in the ToC is a good one, but the
example you quote can be resolved in two ways:  you can
either merge everything into x.y.z or you can add a new
first subsection to take the text previously outside the
two lower sections, giving
x.y.z
 x.y.z.a
 x.y.z.b
 x.y.z.c

These two approaches were the ones I outlined in my
first note.  Either would work for LM 3.3.4, but because
the LM is intended to be read linearly I agree with you 
that the first of these is better in that case.

Trevor