Re: DW function

["Olson, Timothy" timothy_olson@xxxxxxxx]

Reply to Robert Holmgren:

>OK, but I see no logic or benefit to DeFining a word, and schlepping a
>period around with it (when you MoVe it or CoPy or rubout or whatever --
>the commonest reasons for DFing in the first place). It makes no sense.

I agree. I see how this would be useful in writing and editing. That's a
different situation from what I want it to do, though: I want to define a
word and include the surrounding punctuation, then make the defined text
italic (or bold, etc.). It's a *CMS* rule (*CMS* being our house style)
that any attribute given to a word needs to also be given to the
surrounding punctuation. One could debate its relevance for a period (how
can one tell if a period is ital?), but it's certainly applicable when
using boldface, or for ? and !. Aside from that, not having the MDNM in
the right place (after a period) can cause spacing and wrapping anomalies
when the material is typeset. Typesetting is complicated, so I try to do
everything I can in the data preparation to ensure a more straightforward
go of it. But enough about that, I already have the solution.

>Consistency is a virtue, I agree. . . I think this DW anomaly is an
example of just that:
a refinement.
I guess what I was getting as was that, if one is going to adapt
something, to me it seems more straightforward--at least
philosophically--to adapt something that's done consistently into
something that's done differently in different cases. Instead, what the
DW function does is behave differently in different cases (which, I'll
admit, most people--writers and editors--are going to find useful and
thus are going to consider an improvement), and I'm in effect having to
reverse-adapt it to behave consistently. Reverse-adapting things always
strikes me as being more complicated (but again, that's just my
impression, perhaps more philosophical than real) and counterproductive.
(For example, the WinWord approach of treating punctuation as a word
required a whole screen of WordCode to countermand.) However, one could
also look at the situation practically--since either case will require
adaptation anyhow (adapting the Xy3 way to not schlep around the period;
adapting the Xy4 way to include the period), in a sense it really doesn't
matter. The bottom line is, no matter what the situation or goal, XyWrite
can adapt to it! That's why we all love it.

>you don't need to "set aside a day" to get
>acquainted. It takes five minutes to understand how to install, and
after
>that you can take your time
Yes, I realize that. And I'm all for removing the onus from the end user.
(I've even written a Xy3 program that is used by non-XyWrite users,
people who know *absolutely nothing* about XyWrite, to guide them through
creating a parent file, check for proper formatting, print 1-99 copies of
a MS, then prompt to quit.) What I'm interested in with the U2 file is
understanding how it works--I think I could learn a lot from it. I've
long lived in the outer limits of Xy3 XPL (although I never was brave
enough to create my own help files), and I'm just starting to learn Xy4.
This will be a good opportunity to see firsthand some the differences and
additions in Xy4 XPL and learn a little about help file programming too.
Thanks for the tip about the frequent updates to U2. I'll stick a note in
my reminders program (a nice little utility--it's Windows freeware by
Gregory Braun) to check it periodically.

Timothy Olson
Editorial/Technical Assistant
Tyndale House Publishers
(630) 668-8310
(630) 668-8311(FAX)
Timothy_Olson@xxxxxxxx