Problem using Ordered lists >26 items using letters in Pages

Don't think I'm seeing what you're seeing, Peter. Have you tried it?

There is no period after the first A and before the second one. Pages does this numbering by default when selecting Text>List>Numbers>A.B.C. from the Inspector menu

Not exactly. I don't think they considered it at all! Is that really a difference of 'opinion', Jerry, or rather an oversight?

Just to be clear. It's not that I'm complaining about Z->AA. It's the next step, AA->BB->CC and onward from there which makes no sense, because it leaves 25 steps in the middle (AB,... AZ) logically out of the picture. It's my view that the progression should be AA, AB, AC, AD,...AZ, BA,... and not AA, BB, ... I consider this to be an error, pure and simple.

Finding examples of the correct way is not difficult. Look at Apple's own iWorks program, Numbers, which uses an alphabetic progression for columns' ordered labeling past 26! A Google search reveals that proper scientific notation has always been thus for this progression.

It is also my contention that in the event it is in some dispute (which it seems not to be in the scientific community or anywhere else for that matter), but if there is some concern, then the option ought to be given the user to set it to their liking. After all many other alpha-numeric progression schemes are offered in the lists. I have not checked the numbering scheme in other Apple products like Keynote. Feel free,

Both are shortcomings of Apple's design in Pages, IMO. BTW, the initial feedback I got was that they acknowledged it, filed an internal note, and said, no plans exist to fix this. Feel free to file your own comments in the feedback.

I see what you mean. However, if you consider indenting, making a new order of the list (for the indented items) that might logically flow and it would by virtue of the period be somewhat obvious that this was a subcategorization. It's probably not the best way of tiering (possibly another issue, or shortcoming of tiered lists?). Not that relevant to my complaint / problem.

FWIW, my only work around is not to use the ordering at all, but to go to an unordered list (with matching format otherwise), and add in my own numbering instead. It kind of defeats using the list feature for this purpose as I would have to renumber any additions. However the good news, in Pages, is that it gets the letter in this line into a TOC (which it otherwise would NOT be).

Use of the paragraph style to get a TOC listing is how I got into this use of ordered lists in the first place.

Thanks, Fruhulda. Feel free to bring this up to Apple, too.

I think I understand your comment now, thanks, Jerrold. I didn't find any references in literary circles that you seem to prefer (pooh-poohing the nerds' views as you did) about the progression sequence. Apparently it is variable in computer applications to a degree, based on your findings. Maybe the fact that Keynote does do the same is what insired them to do Pages that way. Can't say that I ever used that feature in Keynote so I wouldn't have cared about it there one way or the other. My wife was an English major in college and she didn't remember what that progression was taught or even if it was.

It doesn't seem that anyone else uses Apple's technique though. I'd agree, it doesn't make a lot of sense to discuss further. So, I give up. Seemed so logical at the time, to me. The sequence used by Apple is not, and certainly seems less accepted as you mentioned, and I had already determined. Not that it will cut any ice with Apple.

The only 'literary' reference book I know of is Elements of Style by Strunk. It's not in there. There isn't apparently a hard and fast rule.

But your argument, that Apple's right in following a different technique between their own programs because Numbers is nerdy (paraphrasing), is a bit specious. Since the programs from MS (Office, still the most popular today, despite the variances in the others) agree completely between themselves Excel, Word, and Powerpoint in their progression. So, it seems that Apple did it to "Simply be different," eh?

While I generally like the Apple accomplishments in iWorks (especially given the price), this difference gives me pause. I gave them my 2¢ and that's about it. Thanks for checking. Discussion ended.

Henry