TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
On 25Oct95, John Posada (jposada -at- notes -dot- cc -dot- bellcore -dot- com) wrote:
>Would I have been able to put a 2.1 if I hadn't used a 2.2? If not, how
>do I do a 2.1.1 and a 2.1.2 if I hadn't used a 2.2
IMHO, the requirement that you must have either no subtopics or else more
than one is usually a hindrance rather than a help. I suspect that its
origins lie in the idea that you only make subtopics when you are splitting
out the next topic up into multiple pieces. But in real life (mine, anyway,
though how real it is might be an interesting debate - not on this list,
though! 8-) ) a topic can easily have one and only one subordinate topic.
It seems silly to forbid using a sub-heading to indicate the subordination.
2.0 Main Heading: How To Bite Your Fingernails
[main topic text about biting fingernails]
2.1 Sub-Heading: Special Case - Biting A Thumbnail
[subordinate topic text about biting thumbnails]
2.1.1 Biting The Right Thumbnail
2.1.2 Biting the Left Thumbnail
3.0 Main Heading: How To Bite Your Toenails
[main topic text about biting toenails]
I don't want to have to blend in the thumbnail information with the rest of
the text; it's a special case, and I want people to be able to find it and
read it or skip it as needed. Still less do I want to try to manufacture
artificial special cases about biting other nails just to keep the special
information on thumbnails company.