Re: Editing .pdfs - to do or not to do is the question

[k k <turnleftatnowhere -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

> 
> The editing process that is being proposed is this,
> if a document has 
> changes the editor can make the changes in the .pdf
> and at the same time the 
> writer can make the changes to the source. Perhaps
> I'm old school and need 
> to be woken up, if so, PLEASE tell me. This proposed
> process just seems 
> risky and counterproductive.
> 

Perhaps I'm "old school" too: because I value
accuracy, I agree that it is risky. There is too much
chance that the changes will fall out of synch. If the
writer is out of the office for some reason or if the
email server is down temporarily or something else,
there's the temptation for the editor to make changes
and then get the writer caught up later, and maybe
something happens and he forgets to pass the word
along. Even if there are no communication glitches,
the only way to make sure the verbiage remains the
same in both source and PDF is for the editor to tell
the writer EXACTLY what the new wording should be,
literally letter for letter. There may be times when
that is just too much detail to deal with efficiently.

The only way to be absolutely certain that everything
remains the same is for only one person to change the
source and then to regenerate the PDFs from that. You
get two people making changes to two documents, and
you quadruple the chance of information falling out of
synch.

If the company is having such severe time problems
that going back to the source file and changing things
from there takes too long, then the company needs to
take a long, hard look at its process.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html