TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: conditional text without FrameMaker? From:Bill Fetzner <BFetzner -at- ETCCONNECT -dot- COM> Date:Fri, 2 Jul 1999 14:27:37 -0500
Sounds like a job for a merge list to me. Using that, say in MS Word, create
the list any way you want it as the main document, but place fields in it
where you want the price variables to be found. Then, create a date source
document containing data in records for those variables, one record for each
product line. Then when you run the merge, the resulting series of documents
will each have data corresponding to each of your product lines.
I doubt I would do this with conditional text in Frame because keeping track
of all that data in the midst of the text could get to be a nightmare. I
think you're right that this is fundamentally a database job.
Bill Fetzner, Tech. Writer
bfetzner -at- etcconnect -dot- com
Electronic Theatre Controls ("We light up your life")
> Hi! Our marketing director just came by to ask about a problem he's having
> producing our price list. We produce different versions with their own
> variations of products and prices, and currently they are maintained as
> separate
> PageMaker documents. He asked me if he could use FrameMaker to produce all
> the
> versions from one source. Of course I told him he could, but considering
> this is
> the only document he'd need FrameMaker for, FrameMaker's steep price and
> learning curve make it more than a little unattractive (and I agree with
> that
> assessment).
>