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.


"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.


On 5/16/06, Gillian Flato <gflato at nanometrics.com> wrote:
> Guys,
> 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

Reply via email to