To make mail merge work, Word requires a database or a
reference source which brings us back to having to indicate
somewhere what goes in what topic.
I have to go out now but I prepared the following failing to
pick up on the mail merge point, hence it not being covered in what
follows. See what I have said and post back. I won't be able to
respond today though.
*************************************
Kathy
Read this through before reacting as I am on your side,
although it may not appear so at first. :-)
How would you envisage telling RH "In this topic I have
included Snippet X and within that there is a marker, in this topic
the value of that marker is Red". Then in another topic you have to
tell RH that you want the same snippet but the value of the marker
is Green? Something about that snippet has to be different or the
way it is added has to be different. How do you envisage you would
do that?
Even taking the idea of a master and child I am finding it
difficult to define that logically and unless it can be defined
logically, it cannot be programmed. Let's say the master is "I have
a rabbit" and you want snippets to be able to include "red" or
"green" to give you "I have a red rabbit" or "I have a green
rabbit".
- If we say that there is a marker in front of "rabbit" then
that is no different to a variable. We are then back to how do you
tell RH what value you want for that variable?
- If snippets within snippets were allowed, how would you
write the snippet? It is interrupted by another snippet. "I have a
[insert some other snippet] rabbit" You would need a snippet for
red and a snippet for green. Whenever you insert the master,
something would have to tell RH that for that topic either the red
snippet or the green snippet has to be specified. I can envisage a
programmer being able to write code that recognises there is a
snippet within the snippet and popping up a "tell me which one"
dialogue. At least though when the rabbit dies, you can get a dog
and change the first snippet and in each topic RH knows which inner
snippet is required! For now we will rule out further levels of
snippets within snippets. So perhaps this route could be programmed
but would that really suit?
You are probably thinking why is Peter arguing against me
when what I want is a real world need. I agree with what you want
as I can see cases where instructional steps only vary by a few
words. I am not arguing against you but trying to get out of this
debate a specification that can be programmed. What I am doing is
playing devil's advocate to draw out that specification. I can see
what you want and agree it is a good idea. Other than as above, I
cannot see how to specify a programmable solution that has benefits
over just writing two snippets.
If you can specify something that would work and has benefits
over writing two snippets, then the idea can be put to Adobe and I
know that improving snippets is on the agenda. So, I am with you
but need you to indicate if what I have suggested would suit,
whether you think it has enough benefits to justify the programming
(bear in mind it could be at the expense of something more useful
as like any upgrade only so many man hours can go into an upgrade)
or whether you can see a better solution.
Help others by clicking Correct Answer if the question is answered. Found the answer elsewhere? Share it here. "Upvote" is for useful posts.