Alan Litchfield wrote: > "Misrepresenting" is a little strong don't you think?
I didn't say "misrepresenting," Alan, I said "misinterpreting" -- big difference. I certainly intended no insult or accusation. As for the rest, you have my sympathies for the "non-trivial" process, and maybe I'm being dense instead of just my usual pig-headed and obstinate self. But you (or somebody) seem to be insisting on the one hand that nothing -- not even the shape of a bullet -- may change after content approval, while on the other hand dismissing my query about the final output: > > What is the deliverable? > > > > -- A Word doc? (As a .doc, .docx, or .rtf file? On a > floppy, CD, DVD, > > email attachment, or what?) > > > > -- A PDF? (Created how? With what job options? Fonts embedded? What > > zoom level and view settings on open? Any security settings?) > > > > -- A hard copy? (What size paper? Single-sided or double-sided? > > Letterhead? Watermark?) > > > > These issues have been dealt with at the final production > stage and are not being addressed here. But the choice of heading font, bullet shape, margin size, body text leading, and other such formatting and appearance issues should likewise be "dealt with at the final production stage" instead of the content approval stage. The application of styles from a template to standardize the _appearance_ of headings, lists, tables, etc., is no more a content modification than any of the other "production stage" matters. IMHO, of course. ;-) Richard ------ Richard G. Combs Senior Technical Writer Polycom, Inc. richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom 303-223-5111 ------ rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom 303-777-0436 ------