>In fact, why not leave off the initial "1" if it is taken for granted? That
>is what these two authors seem to do.
>
>A number might look like this: 3.3.4.2.15.

I have a hard time understanding the worth of a system of this sort.

<anecdote>
In French class in high school, one girl copied an organizational
flowchart out of a book onto big white Bristol board and submitted
that as her French assignment. Of course, they use the delightful
word "organigramme" for "org chart," but to this day I see that
poster as epitomizing information that only *insiders* would give a
damn about.
</anecdote>

My Nokia shoephone numbers its menus. If I could possibly remember
it, I could reset the ringing tone by pressing Menu 9-1-1 (how
symbolic!). Yet I can't possibly imagine a function in my shoephone I
use so often that I would find it *preferable* to memorize someone
else's numbering system. In cases like these, the argument can be
made that the whole system is too complicated.

Why should a Web site have to number its links for navigation
purposes? (I exclude from this discussion the *very* useful feature
of Lynx where it numbers links and menu items for you. Every browser
should be do that for us, but a Microsoft nabob made it sound like
the feature is trivial to implement hence worthless.)

--
           Joe Clark
           [log in to unmask]
           <http://www.joeclark.uni.cc> (updated 2000.04.25)