Page Numbering Properties

[Combs, Richard]

Joe Malin wrote:  
 
> Most of the time, I can come up with good reasons for a 
> decision, result, or process that seems "stupid". I'm always 
> looking for better ways to do something, but I hesitate to 
> call other ways "worse". 

First, don't misinterpret me. I think a good case can be made for: 

(a) numbering frontmatter separately with Roman numerals, and then
numbering the rest of the document with Arabic numerals, starting at the
first page of chap. 1 with page #1. 

(b) numbering frontmatter separately with Roman numerals, and then
folio-numbering (chapter-page) the rest of the document, starting at the
first page of chap. 1 with page #1-1. 

(c) numbering the entire document continuously with Arabic numerals,
starting wherever you choose to start (title page, inside cover, ...)
with no separately numbered frontmatter section. 

What I object to is (d) numbering the entire document continuously, but
changing the numbering format so as to _obscure_ that fact -- thus
making scheme (c), which would work just fine, into something confusing
and user-unfriendly. 

There is no good reason to _fool_ people into thinking the book uses
numbering scheme (a) when it doesn't. Period. 

Second, you may "hesitate to call" something worse, but you can't repeal
logic and reason. If one of two alternatives is in fact _better_, then
the other is in fact _worse_. That's how comparisons work. 

Sorry, I have no use for this "politically correct" bovine fertilizer.
Not all ideas are equally valid, and not all answers are equally
correct. When you pretend that they are, you're not doing those with
dumb ideas and wrong answers any favors. 

"It's my opinion, and it's very true." ;-) 

Richard


------
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
------