CDR Tickets

I am attaching two sample documents (English and Spanish) with screenshots from the CDR which show the way standard wording is currently processed.

Standard Wording Samples - Spanish.docx

The Standard Wording Samples - English.docx

A few observations after looking at the Word documents and the relevant CDR documents:

• Yes, the Standard Wording document is a Misc. Document but the way it's used is different, of course. In order to include text as a Misc. Doc Link text to be imported it must be within a Section, meaning the Standard Wording document will need to be restructured.

• Text sections that need to be adjusted obviously couldn't be linked and pulled into the document unless you're willing to create one section of the text for each summary that needs modified "standard text".

• It appears the text coming from the Standard Wording document is placed within StandardWording elements within the document. If we abandon the idea of using Standard Wording fragments like Misc. documents, we may possibly (create a macro to) add the cdr:id of the Para element holding the text to a new attribute we create for the StandarWording element. This would make it simple to run a report and identify all summaries using a particular text/Para from the Standard Wording document.

However, we would want a way to identify these summaries in the future when they need to be revised. In this case, we could have the Misc. Doc. link created just like the non-customized SW above. However, we could have an attribute placed on the link in the summary to not use the SW from the Misc. Doc for those summaries.

I don't understand how this should work. The text content of the misc doc link is the document title which gets automatically updated when the document gets saved. If you need modified text you can't use a misc. doc link unless you're using the approach listed above.

Thanks, Volker! As Margaret had said, and I agree, using the misc. doc approach would make the summary document difficult to read without always consulting the QC report because the misc doc text would not display in XMetal. Would it be possible to display the text of the misc. text in XMetal if the misc. doc approach is adopted?

Would it be possible to display the text of the misc. text in XMetal if the misc. doc approach is adopted?

Is it correct that you would want to have the text be included and displayed in XMetaL but have it stripped out again when saving the summary document? I see several problems with that approach:

1. In order to have the "include" work again the next time the document is opened you would need to have both, the link to the misc. text and the text included in the summary.

2. How would you want to handle the situation when standard wording text is part of insertion/deletion markup?

3. We would need to ensure that the standard wording misc. information get's treated differently from the regular misc. document information. I'm assuming we do not want to change how misc. docs are handled currently.

4. How would you want to handle those portions of the document for which the standard wording included needs to be modified?

Is it correct that you would want to have the text be included and displayed in XMetaL but have it stripped out again when saving the summary document?

No. The text would be included for good or until there is another update (in the misc doc). We currently copy and paste the text from the misc doc into the summary. We also don't want to include the misc. docs as links in the summary because it would make the summary unreadable. So, what I am asking is, if there is a way to make the text of the misc document display in the summary in XMetal (with or without a link).

So, you want to have the misc. doc link and the text the link points to included in the document, right?

Let's brain storm about how this would work on Thursday.

Yes. Sure let's discuss on Thursday. Thank you!