> that you may have to handle (or better avoid) recursive definition. That could be solved by letting the character style of a paragraph style be also a character style.
Imagine I create the pagraph style "Foobar", then I can reach the character part as a character style named for example "Foobar-char". > i really think that the good workflow would to create the char style > first and use it afterwards in the paragraph style. Yes, but people will have a lot of documents created in 1.3.3.13 they want to be able to move to 1.3.5+. > out of it, i think that a properties cloning tool would be the best way > to go. Well, it is possible to duplicate a style. But it is not possible to dupliacate the character properties of a paragraph style into a character style. >> Imagine you have a "body text" paragraph style. The you maybe want >> "body text bold" and "body text italic" cahracter styles for that. It >> doesn't make sense so make a "body text" character style first, then >> let the paragraph style and the two other character styles inherit >> from it. Because the "body text" character style would never be used >> in the document (because the "body text" paragraph style is used in >> those places). > imho, you shouldn't have body text italic and body text bold. if the > whole paragraph is in italic, you should give a meaningfull name like > "definition". Those are not paragraph styles, those are character styles intended to be applied to parts of the paragraph. Like hitting the "Bold" or "Italic" key in a word processor. I could set the shortcut for "body text bold" to Ctrl-B and the shortcut for "body text italic" to Ctrl-I and be able to apply them just as when working in a word processor. > (i guess you know why: what happens if you now decide that you want all > definitions in dark gray instead of italics?) Well, that's a completely different thing. I used these just as an example. In real use I would probably name them BodyTextHighl and BodyTextEmph. /Peter
