Formatting catalogs vs. explicit formatting properties in an EDD

The bulk of the discussion on "Exporting Paragraph Catalog to EDD" (http://forums.adobe.com/message/2083552#2083552) deals with whether EDDs should apply specific formatting properties or apply named formats defined in the document's paragraph or character catalogs. Since that is a worthy topic in its own right, I am giving my response in this new thread.

Frankly, most of the responses to this part of the discussion are simply expressions of personal opinion. I'm a proponent of personal opinion and one of FrameMaker's strengths is its flexibility in supporting different users' preferences. However, I would like to point out in this case there are various technical reasons to use one or the other of these particular techniques.

1. The ability to specify individual formatting properties allows an EDD's context and level rules to specify context-sensitive variations of a base format. For this reason, the term "hierarchical styles" can be used to refer to this approach. Hierarchical styles allow an EDD to apply relevant formatting in the definition of the element that triggers that formatting.

Suppose, for example, that list items contain a sequence of paragraphs and notes and that notes contain a sequence of paragraphs and lists. Further suppose that both lists and notes are variations of the document's base format in which lists are indented and notes are italicized. One approach in the EDD is to assume the paragraph catalog includes formats called Body, Indent, Italics, and IndentItalics. The definition of the paragraph element can then apply one of these formats depending on whether the paragraph is within a list, within a note, within both, or within neither. Alternatively, the definition of the list element can change the indentation without considering whether or not the content is italicized and the definition of the note element can change the angle without considering the indentation.

Using hierarchical styles mean any changes to the base format (by default, Body) do not have to be replicated in numerous variations. The paragraph catalog thus is smaller and hence easier to maintain. Furthermore, no explicit testing for lists within notes or notes within lists is needed. Finally, the formatting is specified where it logically belongs. The developer specifies the list-motivated indention when defining the list element and the note-motivated font change when defining the note element instead of worrying about both of them when defining the paragraph element.

2. If an EDD is based on existing unstructured documents that already have rich paragraph and character catalogs it is often practical to use the existing formats rather than to copy their properties into the EDD.

3. There are numerous FrameMaker plug-ins that operate on paragraph and/or character formats. If the organization's workflow involves such plug-ins, hierarchical styles cannot be used.

4. Using formatting catalogs allows one EDD to be used with multiple templates that define the named formats in different ways. For example, variant templates may use language-specific autonumbers or set indentations and tab stops for different page styles.

Furthermore, note that an EDD developer can choose to refer to formatting catalogs or use hierarchical styles for some cases and use the other technique for others. For example, the developer may refer to the paragraph catalog for various levels of section headings but use hierarchical styles for variations of body paragraphs (such as the lists and notes discussed above).

        --Lynne