TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Ah ha. Ok, the recovery macros exists to fix problems caused by:
1) Dumbass users mucking with manual / autocorrect formatting
2) Changes in style defs over the YEARS of a docs life
3) Word just being a general schmuck.
THEORETICALLY - with controlled practises like you follow, there is NO need
for a recovery ever. PRACTICALLY, due in the main part to the three reasons
above, there is.
HOWEVER - here is the big caveat.
As Tech Writers, we use STYLES to control document appearance. My macros
help return us to that methodology, where the styles will control the list
templates - not the vv word would have us working with. If your styles are
setup correctly, you can run listfix and be assured that the correct
listtemplates get attached.
Now, the listtemplate gets built when it is required, so there is no need to
"pre-build" it for the users. Matter of fact, there is a small risk that
repeatedly doing this during temnplate development will leave unused
listtemplates lying around as excess binary baggage in your template.
IF you are able to use word's default settings in the list galleries, there
is no need to "style" the galleries on each machine. However, most times
there is some sorta customisation, so that needs to be performed on each
target machine.
If your heart is set on using the auto* method, at least test the required
value first, if it is already set correctly then don't do a redefine.
To finally answer your question, you can "seal" your template as tight as
you like, it wont stop the user's documents from acquiring as many
listtemplates as word thinks they should have. Your template will be fine
though...
Steve Hudson
Lead Technical Writer
Wright Technologies (Aus)
steve -at- www -dot- wright -dot- com -dot- au
(612) 9518-1822
The best way to predict the future... is to create it!
Many thanks for your macros and comments on my approach.
As Columbo was wont to say as he was leaving the house of the murderer,
"..there's just one thing I don't understand Mr Hackenburgerstein...".
Well, at the risk of appearing thick, I'm not sure I haven't got a teeny bit
confused about the risks and necessities involved in the setting/resetting
of list templates/gallery positions/styles.
Although I've been using a macro to set up successive test versions of my
template in order to control precisely and repeatedly the settings of styles
and everything else, the end result is simply a template that is then to be
installed in the Workgroup templates location on the network where it will
sit beside a lot of other templates. There is no choice in the location and
local installation of templates is completely out of the question. We use
roaming profiles and any user could be working on any machine.
My aim is for the user to do File > New, pick the template, open a new doc,
type the text of a level-1 heading, apply BMHead1 style to the paragraph and
see the 1. <Heading text>, 1.1 <Heading text> etc appear as if by magic;
he/she can then repeatedly open the doc and work on it on other machines.
As far I as understand it, I provide precisely this by creating within the
template-as-document a list to which is attached a list template based on
the customisation of a list gallery position. In the gallery positions (6
and 7 in bullets, 6 and 7 in outline) I make all indent settings "0" or
"none" save for the linked style. The text of the list entries is removed
from the template before it goes to the network to begin its life as a
template. What goes onto the network is a sealed container (sealed by
disabling access to manual listing).
Is this not simply the same as the user applying the list template
his/herself but in a more controlled manner and further secured by
preventing the user from applying manual list formatting? In effect,
creating a sealed tamper-proof container.
My argument sounds less than wholly convincing, I must admit, as it seems to
entail the conclusion that there is actually no need for a recovery macro at
all, and I'm quite sure you wouldn't have gone to the trouble you have if
this were true.
Have I, despite all your, and my, efforts, still got it wrong?
*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com
Sponsored by Cub Lea, specialist in low-cost outsourced development
and documentation. Overload and time-sensitive jobs at exceptional
rates. Unique free gifts for all visitors to http://www.cublea.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
