CommonQuestions

[Francis Giannaros]

Hi Matt,

On Sunday 09 July 2006 17:44, Matthew East wrote:
> Well, my view is that it has everything to do with it. I think that
> sub-headings which contain long and/or multiple questions aren't useful
> on a table of contents, because they aren't scannable. Reducing them to
> proper headings would probably make a big difference.

No, I'm sorry but you're missing the point[s] here again. This is remark you 
made before (which I fully agree with; that is: the oft superiority of 
sub-headings without fully phrased sentences), but as I've said, it doesn't 
address the other palpable issues with having that table of contents 
structure.

You say not having full phrased questions in the sub-headings is a better 
idea? Fine and dandy, I totally agree; this is something that should be 
implemented *regardless* of which form we decide to use.

But what of the other issues? Check my last email, I used asterisks to 
specifically point them out.

Regards,
apokryphos
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-doc/attachments/20060710/94cb072c/attachment.pgp>