Re: Quark & Frame vs. Word

Subject: Re: Quark & Frame vs. Word
From: Goober Writer <gooberwriter -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: "Mike O." <obie1121 -at- yahoo -dot- com>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:18:34 -0800 (PST)

> I wouldn't attempt to do revision control on a
> heavily laid-out DTP file...
> perhaps you can educate them to review content in a
> simple word-processing
> format, then import it into your DTP tool after the
> content is approved.
> Separation of form and content, etc.

I take it a step further and separate reviewers from
source files, whether they're editing a draft copy or
not. Giving them a source file of any sort to hack
lends itself to problems. You don't want them
accidentally (or otherwise) deleting others' comments
and such. I prefer PDF for this reason. I maintain the
source and take their comments as, well, comments and
not ready-to-go changes. I then print out the comments
and store that comments file for future reference, so
at any point I can go back, say 2-3 years, to see why
a change was made (and who authorized or suggested it).

Goober Writer
(because life is too short to be inept)

"As soon as you hear the phrase "studies show",
immediately put a hand on your wallet and cover your groin."
-- Geoff Hart

We can't all be as creative with sigs as krautgrrl. ;-)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

Previous by Author: Re: Quark & Frame vs. Word
Next by Author: Re: Mini Survey: Who uses XML?
Previous by Thread: Re: Quark & Frame vs. Word
Next by Thread: RE: Quark & Frame vs. Word

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads