| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 218.1 | Rules here, but not there | COOKIE::JOHNSTON | | Tue Apr 07 1987 21:31 | 5 |
| Appendices also get rules, whereas chapters do not. At least
under the appendix title; haven't tried an appendix section.
Rose
|
| 218.2 | Text font smaller? | JAWS::STRYKER | Stew Stryker | Wed Apr 08 1987 13:59 | 3 |
| Is it my imagination, or are the text fonts used in the
SOFTWARE.SPECIFICATION doctype smaller than, say that of the GENERAL
doctype?
|
| 218.3 | no, I don't think so | CLOSET::ANKLAM | | Thu Apr 09 1987 16:10 | 7 |
|
the text fonts are the same. I've already caught most of the
inconsistencies in the SOFT.SPEC major heading designs, but will
double-check...
patti
|
| 218.4 | Mea Culpa, or however you spell it | JAWS::STRYKER | Stew Stryker | Fri Apr 10 1987 09:57 | 6 |
| I now believe that I was comparing the font size of the abstract to
that of the body text. I then probably managed to further confirm my
misguided delusions by comparing two versions that were printed
using styles with different gutter widths. Sorry about that.
Stew
|
| 218.5 | My eyes must be failing... | BUNSUP::LITTLE | Todd Little NJCD SWS 323-4475 | Fri Apr 17 1987 14:35 | 6 |
| Strange, I too seem to feel that either the font got smaller or
maybe lighter weight for SOFT.SPEC than it was in BL6 GENERAL.
Weird...
-tl
|