Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Use Consistent Numbering scheme in Computation Steps #185

Closed
Epigenetic opened this issue Jan 27, 2023 · 6 comments · Fixed by #188
Closed

Use Consistent Numbering scheme in Computation Steps #185

Epigenetic opened this issue Jan 27, 2023 · 6 comments · Fixed by #188
Assignees

Comments

@Epigenetic
Copy link

The numbering schemes for the sub-steps of 4.3.2 are insistent from step to step. In step 2.B uses bullets then roman numerals and then letters, while steps 2.A, 2.C, and 2.D use bullets throughout. Step 2.F uses roman numerals and then bullets or letters. This makes the algorithm more difficult to parse than it needs to be, and given that all the steps should be executed in sequence, they should probably all be ordered lists.

@jnurthen
Copy link
Member

jnurthen commented Feb 2, 2023

#139 seems like it would resolve this

@cookiecrook
Copy link
Contributor

@Epigenetic please review the diff in #139. While it does not address your comment specifically, it does change all cross-references to use named identifiers, in both visible prose and as permalinks. If that resolves the root of your issue, please close as a duplicate. Otherwise, please comment and keep open.

@Epigenetic
Copy link
Author

I think this is related to #139, but not resolved. This is more related to one of your comments (#139 (comment)) where you said:
"It's not always clear why sub-sections are ordered versus unordered. Should all of them be ordered for consistency? The style sheet could be updated to ensure a consistent numbering system for each level."
This issue is requesting we make this consistent, which does not seem to be in your PR.

@cookiecrook
Copy link
Contributor

Editor’s draft now has the named steps merged, so I think we could probably do one of several things:

  • change all the UL lists to OL, so everything would be #.x.#
  • remove all the generated list styles and explicitly order them #.#.# so “2C Embedded Control” would become “2.3 Embedded Control”
  • Remove the generated list styles and leave with named steps only. (Least appealing to me for a number of reasons.)

Thoughts?

@Epigenetic
Copy link
Author

Messing around with the markup it seems like switching to OL gets us most of the way there. The only place this has issues is step 2B.ii which has substeps that nest deeper than the style sheet currently accounts for.

@cookiecrook
Copy link
Contributor

cookiecrook commented Feb 10, 2023

If that ends up being problematic, it's easily solvable.

cookiecrook added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 11, 2023
resolves #185

pls merge #187 first, as this one branched from it
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants