Bingo, but I have been extra careful cleaning up (too long to go into) in my 4 months OTJ here. I haven't deleted any tags. I will, later, but that's after I hire 2-3 additional writers. These books were constructed by an unknown number of contract writers over the course of 6+ years. There are many "duplicate" named tags, and many tags that have the same functions, but follow some writer's personal naming convention. For these reasons, I have put off cleaning my catalogs.
-----Original Message----- From: Combs, Richard [mailto:richard.co...@polycom.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:30 AM To: Kelly McDaniel; Linda G. Gallagher; Framers Subject: RE: FM weirdness Kelly McDaniel wrote: > Linda, > > Thanks, no, I haven't changed emphasis nor deleted it. It's > still in the catalog...Kelly. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Linda G. Gallagher [mailto:lindag at techcomplus.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:05 AM > To: Kelly McDaniel; 'Framers' > Subject: RE: FM weirdness > > Kelly, > > That looks like a character style that was used in a cross > reference format, and now that character style no longer > exists in the files. Might you have deleted or renamed the > character style? Format names (among other things) are case-sensitive in FM, so "emphasis" and "Emphasis" are two different character formats. FM's default character catalog (what you get when you create a new "Blank Paper" document) includes "Emphasis." Your example ("To learn how to configure these views, see <emphasis>Configuring Views, on page 189.") does indeed look like a non-existent character format is specified in the cross-reference definition, as Linda suggested. Maybe your character catalog includes "Emphasis," but not "emphasis." HTH! Richard ------ Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 ------ rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 ------