🚀 go-pugleaf

By the by, in that thread, when you asked Mr Diamond what image handling he wanted and he gave an extensive reply, you left it at that instead of trying to convince him he didn't need the features he cited.    

Because they would be genuine improvements and I could not think of a workflow change that would achieve what he wants. 

Why can't you extend the same courtesy to those who have a genuine desire for multiple undo and accept their word that it would be beneficial for them, without accusing them of not understanding FM or writing crap. Why do they have to justify their position to you?   

They don't have to justify anything. However, if I see an inefficiency in their approach, I am going to offer a thought as to how they can work with FrameMaker's strengths. Some people like to consider such suggestions with an open mind. Others don't. 

For example, it is bad logic to argue that multiple undo must be useful only because single undo is useful. To say you are basing your entire DTP-purchasing decision on that one feature seems wrongheaded. Using multiple undo to test various layouts is less efficient than using tags and structure--but some might not have considered using tags and structure to do things efficiently in FrameMaker that they used undo for in other, less-structured applications. 

It is certainly valid to want multiple undo for the marketing reason of satisfying the customer base. It is also true to point out that multiple undo has much more utility in applications other than FrameMaker, including image-editing apps and less stable apps, where multiple undo is necessary to fix shortcomings in the application. 

Plus, there are reasons not to want multiple undo, such as the added overhead, and, if there are resources to use for multiple undo, there are other features and fixes that are more critical and should be addressed first. 

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.    

It is trollishly silly of you to go on and on about this animal if you don't care about it or have a use for it. Certainly, it seems illogical to mindlessly accept the belief of others that they _need_ multiple undo when that feature could impede your workflow, by slowing down the product, sucking up resources, or by using up resources that could have been used to fix some other FrameMaker issue that you run into regularly. That is, you should keep an open mind and also consider the opinions of those who don't need multiple undo, our want it but would prefer other things be addressed first. 

To answer your number one question, 

 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"   

Your posts indicated a need for multiple undo and an approach to your writing that seemed chaotic and whimsical. It seems you don't share that view, and it doesn't matter to me that you misjudge that. 

I brought up the font twiddling thing because it sprang to mind while I was reading your meandering prose in this thread, your justifications for multiple undo, and your way of going about things. 

As for Bill. He's a goober. :?P 

Cheers and grins, 

Sean