Michele wrote:
2008/8/24 Jean Hollis Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sak wrote:
My first question is whether the style template has been finalized yet, or
if it's still got issues? I remember several weeks back there were some
issues that were holding up the use of it, so I was curious to know what the
status on that was.
Michele and I have been working on it, and I think it's ready to unleash
upon the rest of you. I'll try to remember to upload it later today, and let
the list know when I've done that.
I haven't used the template that much in the past two weeks but it
seemed pretty stable. The only problem I have encountered is that when
you have nested lists you are better off re-creating them from scratch
as re-applying the styles does not seem to be enough.
Out of curiosity, why is there a Start, Continued, and End style for list
styles?
IIRC, Gary and Michele wanted that to "future-proof" our docs in case we
wanted to use more conspicuously different spacing in the future... such as
no space between list items but a line space after the last list item -- a
style already in use for code listings, btw.
As Jean wrote it is a matter of flexibility (as well as following what
the OOo UI already includes). At present we only differentiate the End
style (it has a larger space below the paragraph), while Start and
Cont. are the same.
In the character styles, I noticed that OOoMenuPath and OOoStrongEmphasis
appear to be the same. In the current chapter I'm reviewing, I noticed that
OOoMenuPath is used in a number of places that aren't actually menu paths,
so I was wondering about your thoughts on that continued practice, or
whether OOoStrongEmphasis should be used for single bolded items that aren't
explicit menu paths.
OOoMenuPath should probably be renamed, as the name does not adequately
describe its intended use, which is for icon and button names and other
controls on dialog boxes (as well as for menu paths themselves). Or perhaps
we should have a separate style for those other controls, even if the
appearance (bold) is the same. Personally, I dislike proliferating styles
(even when I can see the reason for doing so), but that's just my preference
for simplicity.
I am also against having too many character styles. My in house rule
is to use MenuPath for every item that the user can select or click,
be it a menu, dialog box option, context menu entry and so on... I
tend not to use bold and if something requires more emphasis than what
OOoEmphasis provides (e.g. in a sentence such as "do *not* click OK"),
Gary has created a red coloured text which does the trick perfectly
(not sure it was ever made into a style though).
I'll leave it to Gary and/or Michele to decide on whether to change to using
OOoStrongEmphasis (or some new style) for bolded items that aren't menu
paths. Is there is a way to search-and-replace for *character* styles? I'm
only aware of s&r for paragraph styles.
There is an issue open regarding the ability to search for character styles.
--Jean
Cheers,
Michele :-D
I wasn't concerned with the style definitions differing but rather the
style names used in the exposition, themselves. Why create different
names other than those already among the OOo predefined style names in
the written instructions? Just use those style names already present.
That just causes the creation of unnecessary custom styles. I almost
always redefine the OOo presets anyway to the way I want them. I
differentiate the different styles in the templates and keep much the
same style names for almost all my writings/editing unless the clients
desire their custom names.
I really don't care much one way or the other if **our** template uses
custom names, though. I would just prefer we kept the creation of custom
styles to a minimum in the exposition and simply taught the users how to
reformat those already there (the OOo-predefines) to their own needs and
desires.
Unnecessarily creating custom styles makes the files or templates a bit
less portable among different users (having different names for the same
functions). And it keeps the lists of styles manageably shorter.
Besides, as I mentioned before, there is some grouping of styles in the
Stylist for various types of styles.
I might change some of new style names in some sections of the text if
there is no real reason to use them. Obviously, those style names that
specifically deal with custom styles are OK, though.
--
Gary Schnabl
2775 Honorah
Detroit MI 48209
(734) 245-3324
