Orphan headers

Subject: Orphan headers
From: "Stevenson, Rebecca" <Rebecca -dot- Stevenson -at- workscape -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 11:07:00 -0400

This is one of those questions that may have no right answer, but I've always been under the impression that you should never have a single sub-head under a main head, like 1.1 in the following:

1. Level 1
1.1 Level 2
2. Level 1
2.1 Level 2
2.2 Level 2

Am I on crack? We've got three writers to try to align writing style among (no editor, but peer edits when we can). I don't want to come off as insisting we do things my way, but this one I truly thought was a common convention. Reply only to me since this is only marginally on-topic, I think; I'll summarize if there is interest.


Rebecca Stevenson
Technical Writer
Workscape, Inc.
> 508-861-3059
AIM: RJSWriter


Robohelp X3, from eHelp, lets you quickly and easily create
professional Help systems for all your Windows and Web-based
applications, including Net.

Order RoboHelp X3 in May and receive a $100 mail-in rebate, PLUS
free RoboScreenCapture and WebHelp Merge Module.

Order RoboHelp today: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.

Previous by Author: One last shot at finding publisher before self-publishing
Next by Author: RE: Orphan headers - FOLLOWUP
Previous by Thread: RE: RE: RE: Exploitation is a two-way street (was a bunch of other threads)
Next by Thread: Re: Orphan headers

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

Sponsored Ads