🚀 go-pugleaf

In closing, then: 

1. Whether or not multiple undo (MU) is implemented in FrameMaker makes no difference to me or my workflow. I prefer not to use it and am unlikely to change my habits on its use. I, however, respect those who say that they do want it and I  accept their word that it would genuinely benefit their workflow. 

2. If I didn't accept that people had a genuine use for MU, I would not advocate adding it to FM. I can't see the point in adding features purely for marketing purposes. 

3. I have no idea about whether the MU in InDesign is translatable to FM, so that's why I wrote "if" a similar system could be used for FM. I certainly wasn't arguing that "they did it in ID so they can do it in FM". I know the code bases are vastly different, but the general idea may be able to be utilised. 

4&5. David Diamond is the inital poster in the "FrameMaker 7.0: A Sad Update..." thread. Your query is listed as message no 1, his reply as message no 2. As for "I don't think jumping between threads will help you to understand my position", I could reply that I don't see how my sense of humour or my posts lead you to conclude that I "fail to see the strength in the designers and structuring your documents globally, rather than one word at a time". You still haven't answered that one (but don't worry, I never thought you would). Moreover, because you find this thread "entertaining" and Mr Swallow finds it "amusing", does this mean your judgement also applies to yourself and to him? 

6. I don't see the connection between a career in writing and "endlessly playing with fonts on a local basis". I wasn't aware that writers did this and I don't understand why you brought up the whole "font twiddling/endlessly playing with fonts" issue in the first place. What relevance does this have to MU? I do think that MU is useful for authors and I do think that FM is used by authors, therefore I can understand why they would want MU in FM. I've always thought that one of FM's strengths was that documents could easily be written in FM in the first place, without having to use a separate word processor. Your comment that "if I were ... writing, re-writing, and changing my prose creatively and frequently, and locally, I'd probably want multiple undo, too" is also relevant here. I assume that some of the people who want MU are doing precisely this, and I don't see it as necessarily being inconsistent with an understanding of FM or an inappropriate use of the software; rather I think FM is a very good piece of software for authors and editors to use. 

Dominic