Re: Feedback: TAB-555 Bad sub-sectioning

[Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com>]

Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> writes:
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Rusty,
>
> I did a bad job explaining that one. My bad.

Hi Patrick,

        Actually, I should have read your following section on
hanging paragraphs: together they make a great deal of sense.

I'm still going to disagree, though :)

> So at first blush I would say:
>
> 2.2 Features
>
> 2.2.1 Feature Bits Interface
>
> 2.2.2 Legacy Interface: A Note on transitions from earlier drafts

I cringe when I'm faced with reading documents structured like this.
There's a tension between the flow of the document which makes it
readable as a whole, and its use as a reference which makes it readable
in parts.

I want both.  The section 2.2 text should contain welcoming text which
introduces the whole section, and the normative parts (aka reference)
should be called out into sections.

I'm restructuring the document to tease out the normative statements;
let's see how that goes then revisit this.

Thanks,
Rusty.