> so the 
> reflection is obviously one against the format chosen by Wrox 
> and continued when Wiley took things over.  Of course, I 
> can't imagine that this is something they do in
> ignorance: My guess is that their research and/or 
> user-feedback from over the years suggests this to be a 
> format that works for the core readers/customers that are 
> attracted to Wrox titles.

Actually, the original Wrox (when they were an independent UK-based
publisher) got this right; when Wiley took over the brand they messed it up,
largely due to a lack of coordination between their "editorial" and
"production" departments - a distinction which didn't exist in the much
smaller Wrox company. When the technical editor and I realized the page
proofs didn't have the alphabetical section headings we tried to get it
fixed but were told it was too late to change, for which I can only
apologize to readers!

I'm in the very early stages of discussion with Wiley about doing a revised
edition of the books to fix the few areas where the final specs have
diverged. Don't hold your breath.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/