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

Reply via email to