I'm sure you know that an all-in-one numbering scheme can be de-mystified
by documenting it on a reference page. I'm also sure you've tried it. So,
have you found any drawbacks to this approach, other than the problem of
getting other users to refer to the reference page? Not implying there's
Just to clarify when I said "unnecessary" in Frame--I meant for MY workflow
experience. I like all my numbering schemes to be labeled independent of
each other--it keeps the code simpler for each style and it makes it easier
to add deeper levels to each style group.
I label my tables and figures
I dumped the chapnum approach around 15 years ago since I found that
with FrameMaker 7 was no longer any need to worry about running out of
memory. In my later FM projects I put all the chapters in a single .fm
file.
___
This message is from the Framers
The only thing I would add is to expand on David's mention of explicit
"resetters" for each format in the series:
Chapter H:<$chapnum>< =0>< =0>< =0>
H1H:<$chapnum>.< =0>< =0>
H2H:<$chapnum>..< =0>
H3H:<$chapnum>...
While these aren't
My method/two cents...
You can put the chapters in a book as usual. You can put those books in a
master book to control the volume numbers--or if you just have a few volumes
you can set volume number manually in each book.
You can include the volume number where ever you want--such as x-refs,
