Provide guidance on creating sub-assemblies or modules instead of second level headings

[Preeticp]

== H2's in assembly files are not rendered in the TOC of the PV2 Customer Portal.

See: https://github.com/redhat-documentation/modular-docs/issues/124#issuecomment-685015888 and https://github.com/redhat-documentation/modular-docs/issues/124#issuecomment-685044555.

As noted, quite a few of our docs use the Second level headings in assemblies, we need to avoid them and use sub-assemblies or modules instead so that they render on the TOC.

A recommendation/a note asking writers to use sub-assemblies or modules instead of second level headings needs to be added to the guide.

[emmurphy1]

This issue is specific to PV2 and how our content is displayed on the Customer Portal. I believe that the change is intentional. However, if writers want to manipulate the way we format our documents so that we force H2s to display in the portal TOC, we should probably talk to the PV2 and design teams about why they made this change. Maybe we should bring this up at the Steering Committee and see how folks feel about it? Maybe do a show and tell?

[thatdocslady]

AFAIK the only H2s in assemblies are the Prerequisites and the Additional resources (which are in the templates so I guess that means it's ok?). In RHOSP for example we try to avoid any other H2s, but maybe it'll be helpful to make this more explicit in the guidelines. Happy to help with this if needed.

[emmurphy1]

@thatdocslady I think what @Preeticp is referring to specifically is using additional H2s in glue text. In fact, the point of the two H2s (Prerequisites and Additional Resources) in the assembly template was to force those headings into the TOC. I think we need find out how Jupiter will handle H2s in assembly files.