I think you are right Art. The basic reason for this structure was to enable easy reference/navigation to specific entries. As we move further away from "dead tree" versions, the need for this kind of user-observable structuring is fading. OTOH, I think one could argue that the rise of XML and other markup languages is incresing the demand for this kind (as in "nature") of item marking is becoming ever more prevalent.
Grant "What makes a master is not physical skill alone but mental clarity, emotional maturity, and spiritual awareness." --Tom Callos -----Original Message----- From: framers-bounces+grant.hogarth=reuters....@lists.frameusers.com [mailto:framers-bounces+grant.hogarth=reuters.com at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Art Campbell Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:20 PM To: Gillian Flato Cc: framers at frameusers.com Subject: Re: Numbering Systems for Technical Service Manuals I think it's still mostly used in environments where the manuals are written to a standard that requires it: MilSpec, BellCore, whatever.... In "civilian" docs, I think it's largely faded away. Art On 5/16/06, Gillian Flato <gflato at nanometrics.com> wrote: > Guys, <snip> > What's the general consensus on numbering with the 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2 > type of way? Is that generally history now, or is it actually still > used a lot? -- Art Campbell art.campbell at gmail.com "... In my opinion, there's nothing in this world beats a '52 Vincent and a redheaded girl." -- Richard Thompson No disclaimers apply. DoD 358
