Re. Summary and thanks

[Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

     Thanks to all who replied privately and publicly to my query on the
     usefulness of numbered headings (and indeed, to my various other
     posts). The consensus seems to be that numbered headings are horrible
     things that you can generally plan around, but a few voices came down
     strongly in their favor. Here are a few of the more convincing
     arguments in favor, plus my commentary:

     - It's easier to refer to section 1.1.1.1 than to provide the full
     context (i.e., the titles for each of the headings and subheadings).
     But surely a page reference is just as good in many cases?

     - Some people find the numbers a useful clue to hierarchy. Personally,
     I'm limited to understanding about three levels at a time, which means
     a seven-digit number doesn't help. (Pop quiz: what is the hierarchical
     meaning of level five of the numbering? How about level 7? Now
     assuming that you know, as the author, will your audience know too?)

     - Numbers are important in certain specification systems (e.g.,
     MILSPEC), where they have a standardized meaning. Can't comment,
     having not worked to such specs, but sounds perfectly reasonable. Some
     styles take on a life of their own, and there's little point trying to
     replace them with something better (if it really is better).

     - Numbers make tracking revisions (and issuing updates) easier. Maybe,
     but issuing new pages to replace old ones is easier still. Even where
     the number is important for the author's use, does it retain this
     importance for the reader?

     As you can see, I'm unconvinced, but some of these points are worthy
     of more discussion. I _can_ be persuaded. Any more comments, details,
     rebuttals, clarifications, etc.?

     --Geoff Hart    #8^{)}
     geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

     Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one of
     our reports, it don't represent FERIC's opinion.