Re: QUESTION: Consistent Index Entries

[Bev Parks <bparks -at- HUACHUCA-EMH1 -dot- ARMY -dot- MIL>]

If you were just using the acronyms and their meanings, I would
suggest using duplicate entries with no "see" references, as follows--
    Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), pg#, pg#
    ...
    SNMP (Simple Network Management Protocol), pg#, pg#

But, it appears that each of your entries has several
subentries; so you may not want to duplicate everything under
the major entry.

My gut feeling is that, in this case, consistency may be more
important than common use. If you're going to use "see"
references on the acronym entries, then do so in all cases.

=*= Beverly Parks =*= bparks -at- huachuca-emh1 -dot- army -dot- mil =*=
 =*= "These opinions are mine, not my employer's." =*=
  =*=                     =*=                     =*=
=====================
Paul MacGyver Carman <paul -dot- carman -at- HARRIS -dot- COM> asked-->
 How would you handle the following index quandry?

   * Generally, in my index I include acronyms with a "see _insert
     acronym meaning here_" and no page number.  The corresponding
     entry includes all of the information.

     Occasionally, however, the acronym is more important that the
     terms for which it stands.

     Would it be acceptable to consistently mix my standards?

     For example:
         Simple Network Management Protocol (see SNMP)
         SNMP
           xxxxx
           yyyyy
           zzzzz
                 _and_
         View Builder
           xxxxx
           yyyyy
           zzzzz
         VB (see View Builder)

 With our customers, the acronym "SNMP" is used more than the terms
 for which it stands. The term "View Builder," however, is used more
 often than its acronym.