What is the general consensus on the space between the digits for MF, Do we have to do them or can we eliminate them? Typing in the spaces is a pain.
Richard,
We ignore them. They are a pain to use as well.
Wayne
When MF2004 first came out, I thought the two/four format made the most sense–the division, and the subdivision within it. However, virtually all the MF2004 specs I’ve done or seen in the last 10 years have used the three-pair numbering (though six without spaces appears a lot in fileneames, where spaces can cause problems in linking). IMO, the three pair format has become the default standard. I also use it in filenames. It still seems harder to read than 5 digits.
Since MF allows multiple spacing options at the user’s option, you can use whatever method you prefer. I don’t use spaces in any specifications I produce, except in rare cases where it is req’d by a client. I find it easier to manage without spaces, although using any of the spacing options available w/ MasterWorks is simple if you use that program.
For documents listing multiple spec sections, such as the Project Manual TOC and correspondence w/ my clients, I separate the 1st two digits because I find it easier to read multiple sections in a list if they are clearly organized by Division.
I strongly prefer the 2+4 format. It is more pronounceable. Setting off the division helps in aligning with the Table of Contents, where the Sections are listed under Divisions.
I find the typing of spaces in the 2+2+2 arrangement to be tedious and annoying. Other than “that’s the way it’s done”, I see no advantage.
John, you confirm my initial impression that 2-4 makes the most sense. I’m considering trying it. If I do, it will likely draw fire from those in the office who ask why. (“We’ve always done it the other way!”)
Two worse reasons for doing anything: “We’ve always done it that way” and “We’ve never done it that way”.
I also like 2+4: more easily identifies the division, sections align in a directory and it’s easily spoken.
MEP consultants kept sending me 2+2+2 format. I just gave up fighting it. I preferred 2+4.
BTW it’s a simple switch in SpecLink-e. It takes all of about 30 seconds if everything is formatted correctly.
It’s a pain when compiling a manual if you have other documents to place between because they do not align correctly. It becomes a manual (pun intended) exercise.
Richard, that’s one of the reasons I’m considering the switch–I’d like for the office to start using SpecLink. I couldn’t do it otherwise. Such a change isn’t feasible with the system we have.
Lynn, one of the greatest tools in my quiver is a free shareware program called FileRenamer Basic,and it makes changing file names an absolute breeze. it’s a phenomenally useful program:
http://download.cnet.com/File-Renamer-Basic/3000-2248_4-10306538.html
It sounds wonderful, but I’m not allowed to install software on the office computer. And as of June 2nd, I won’t care anymore…
Lynn - are congratulations in order? Are you joining us in a life of leisure?
Well Lynn, I guess its a good thing we stay in touch on 4specs, congrats!
Yup, June 2 will be my last day of corporate, paid work. I plan to continue with CSI and related things in my life, so I’ll still be writing and seeing y’all almost as much as now.
Congratulations Lynn. Be careful though, I think George is busier now than when he worked!
Thanks, Steve. I understand that’s almost the norm now. I hear the same thing from a lot of folks. But at least, no one else is insisting I be somewhere or do something at their whim. I’ll be free to say “N…” Eh? What’s that word?
Know? But that is 4 letters. The one you are looking for is 2, but I don’t remember the second letter either. Good luck finding the answer on this forum.