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 [] 
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]
> 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." 


Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom

Reply via email to