Eli Har-Even:
> . . . Does anyone have a use-case where having two sets of
> numbered lists has been useful? Is there any reason for having both sets?
No use case, but I can certainly imagine situations where a complex step
requires an embedded list, and where a list item includes a (hopefully
Our FrameMaker templates have two sets of numbered lists, one set for steps
(step1, step2, step3) and another for lists (and list1, list2, list3).
Visually, steps and lists look different, but in practice, authors use them
interchangeably. I'm considering simplifying the template by eliminating
--- Eli Har-Even [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our FrameMaker templates have two sets of numbered
lists, one set for steps (step1, step2, step3) and
another for lists (and list1, list2, list3).
Visually, steps and lists look different, but in
practice, authors use them interchangeably. I'm
Eli Har-Even:
. . . Does anyone have a use-case where having two sets of
numbered lists has been useful? Is there any reason for having both sets?
No use case, but I can certainly imagine situations where a complex step
requires an embedded list, and where a list item includes a (hopefully
Our FrameMaker templates have two sets of numbered lists, one set for steps
(step1, step2, step3) and another for lists (and list1, list2, list3).
Visually, steps and lists look different, but in practice, authors use them
interchangeably. I'm considering simplifying the template by eliminating
At 17:20 +0200 30/4/07, Eli Har-Even wrote:
> I'm considering simplifying the template by eliminating one
>of the sets of tags. Does anyone have a use-case where having two sets of
>numbered lists has been useful? Is there any reason for having both sets?
There's always a general case for
--- Eli Har-Even wrote:
> Our FrameMaker templates have two sets of numbered
> lists, one set for steps (step1, step2, step3) and
another for lists (and list1, list2, list3).
> Visually, steps and lists look different, but in
> practice, authors use them interchangeably. I'm
considering
