[Discussion]: Should we add a 4th level of numbering to statements?

[manics]

Summary

Add a 4th level of numbering to statements (a.b.c.d)

Source

Me, after updating the spec and having to renumber a lot of statements

Detail

Currently each statement has a three-level number (PILLAR.SECTION.STATEMENT).

Several pillars, including information governance and computing technology have an additional division. Statements are split across multiple tables, but the number is consecutive across tables.

I think we should standardise on a 4-level hierarchy. For example, this means
2. Computing technology → 2.1. End user computing → End user computing interfaces → 2.1.1 <statement>
would become
2. Computing technology → 2.1. End user computing → 2.1.1 End user computing interfaces → 2.1.1.1 <statement>

Intended Output

Decision on whether to add a 4th level of numbering

Who can help

@sa-tre/spec-maintainers

[sa-]

Hey Simon,

I think I was tagged here by mistake but I think I'll comment anyway. Something like Text Pastry should save you time if the decision to add a 4th level of numbering is not accepted.

First select an instance of 2.1. and press cmd+d until all the relevant bits are selected.

Then using multiple cursors press alt+fn+delete to delete the statement number. Then you can use the Text Pastry 1 to X command to auto number at every cursor

[manics]

Thanks, and sorry for the inadvertent tag. GitHub auto-completion on team names with hyphens doesn't seem to work properly.