Lou Iorio wrote:
Neither does your "waste of time" argument. It takes no more time
to get titles right than it does to get any other writing right.
This is false. It would significantly add to the time spent reviewing.
It adds another thing that is easy to get wrong, which invites
inconsistency. And using heading inconsistently is worse than not using
the style that you prefer.
I'm sorry you don't like the decision that was made by our editors. But
that decision /is/ made.
I can certainly live with your rules; I was simply looking for
justification. I have seen none yet.
You have been given plenty. There is no benefit in using the other style
(since both are legitimate) and there is a significant drawback in terms
of training our writers, and work for our reviewers and editors. I know
because I've worked here mostly as a reviewer, and I don't want to go
back and change all the titles in all the guides. We have limited
resources and we must be careful as to where to use them.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
\/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were
/ were severely inconvenienced.
