TOC & styles logic

[Mark Daniel]

Yes, 'Base' is missing. I'm not sure what happened to it as 'Delete unused styles' won't delete it but if you define the indents in 'TOC 1: Section title' rather than leaving them as 'No Change' it will stop doing strange things.

 

Mark

 

PS That looks like a very cool book 🙂

 

[Gianni Becattini]

@Mark Daniel

I already tried to change to 0 the left indent (instead of "no change") but in my case the behavior did not change.

P.S. Thanks for your appreciation. The book is completely free and is downloadable from http://www.k100.biz/parade.htm, if you like to see it. This is only a hobby for me, but now I am working on a book that is going to be printed. So, I had to learn a lot about graphics, to prepare a professional document. That is the reason why I am so much annoying this forum. Thanks to all you, friends, may be that I eventually succeed.... 😁

[MikeTO]

2 hours ago, LondonSquirrel said:

If that is the case, why is 'Base' deletable? 

It's optional. If you open an IDML template there won't be a Base group in the document.

[MikeTO]

5 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

So what happens to styles based on 'Base' when the the rug is pulled out from under them?

I'm going to cover this in the next chapter I add to my manual. 🙂 

If you create a new document with default styles, edit Base to make it green, type something in Heading 1 (which is based on Base), and then:

• Delete "Base" - Heading 1 will become black because it will no longer be based on Base, it loses the inherited values as you'd expect
• Delete "Base" Group - Heading 1 will also be deleted even though it's in use because it's part of the Base group - there is no confirmation alert but you can always undo

[MikeTO]

20 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

I think this is part of the problem. If 'Base' is what we expect to be the basis of other styles (from its name), and it is then removed, other styles do (sometimes, not 100% certain this is true in every single case) lose their inherited values, as you say. But what are they reverting to, as Base does not exist? What are their defaults and where do they come from, if Base no longer exists? They seem to have their own defaults, not inherited from Base.

My view: if anything is based on Base, Base should not be removable. Instead, trying to remove it should produce an error: so and so styles are using Base as part of their attributes.

Base is just a style group, deleting it is no different than deleting any other style group. I see your point, there really isn't a good reason for Base to be delete-able but it doesn't hurt anything because it's just a style group and you can make a new base group named "My favourite formatting" or whatever you want and then base Heading 1 and Body off of that. Or delete it and don't use any style groups, base Body and Heading 1 off of nothing. It's up to you.

If you delete a text style based on nothing or a text style based on Base you will get the same results - the text will be formatted with Publisher's default attributes (which you can modify with Edit > Defaults of course).

2 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:

If I change TOC 1: Entry to be based on [No Style], what should I expect to see? Because there are many settings with options set to [No change] (e.g. Character/Font family). 

That is 'no change' from what if the style is not based on anything?

Oh that's what's going on with this document. @Gianni Becattini You didn't actually delete Base, you just edited TOC 1: Entry and based it on No Style instead of Base. That results in Base being hidden in the TOC style group but does not delete it from the document's main text style list. The "Base" style group is the same for a document and its TOCs - editing it in one place will edit it in the other - but changing TOC 1: Entry to be based on something other than Base will hide Base in the list of TOC text styles.

I don't think it's a good idea to change TOC 1: Entry to be based on No Style. I will add a tip to that effect in my manual.

[MikeTO]

Just now, LondonSquirrel said:

I know that. But if many attributes are now 'No change' they must still, logically, be based on something. What is that something?

That something is the default attributes in use when the document was created (or when the defaults were updated while this document was open for editing and then saved).

1. Open a document, type some text, make it Green 36.
2. Choose Edit > Defaults > Save to set the defaults
3. Format the text as Heading 1 - now it will be Black 20 (unless you changed the default text styles of course)
4. Save and close the text document.
5. Create a new document.
6. Choose Edit > Defaults > Factory Reset and then Edit > Defaults > Save to restore the defaults
7. Open the text document
8. Delete Heading 1 - the text will be Green 36 because those are the document's defaults even though the app's defaults have been reset

It's the same for deleting text styles as it is for deleting text style groups.

[Old Bruce]

1 hour ago, MikeTO said:

... there really isn't a good reason for Base to be delete-able ...

I would think that any Group Style, regardless of name, should be deletable. 

[MikeTO]

1 hour ago, LondonSquirrel said:

My view: That is not always the case. I have seen weird attributes, which I know 100% for sure that I have not set, and are not the defaults, creeping into formatting in TOCs. If they were defaults, APub has invented them for itself.

The problem with [No change] attributes being actually based on defaults, is that I do not know what they are. Using my example of making TOC 1: Entry based on [No Style], how am I supposed to guess what these values are?

Maybe [Default] should be made an actual style that we can all see and know exactly what is set there.

I would also like to be able to easily see and edit the defaults. The only way to find out the defaults right now is to draw a new text frame, choose No Style paragraph and No Style character, type some text, and then inspect the formatting. 

[walt.farrell]

2 hours ago, MikeTO said:

there really isn't a good reason for Base to be delete-able but it doesn't hurt anything

If you make your own Text Styles you can base them on anything you want, which could be Base or [No Style] or anything else. 

When you use the standard, built-in Text Styles, they are all based on Base (perhaps indirectly, but it's at the root of the tree). So in that case, if you delete Base, you may cause a lot of unexpected changes. 

Consider that you may avoid using the built-in Text Styles, and create all the Text Styles yourself. And in that case you may consider it safe to delete Base. The original with that idea is that for TOCs and Indexes you are forced to use built-in Text Styles, and having Base becomes important even if all the other Text Styles are your own.

[MikeTO]

3 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

If you make your own Text Styles you can base them on anything you want, which could be Base or [No Style] or anything else. 

When you use the standard, built-in Text Styles, they are all based on Base (perhaps indirectly, but it's at the root of the tree). So in that case, if you delete Base, you may cause a lot of unexpected changes. 

Consider that you may avoid using the built-in Text Styles, and create all the Text Styles yourself. And in that case you may consider it safe to delete Base. The original with that idea is that for TOCs and Indexes you are forced to use built-in Text Styles, and having Base becomes important even if all the other Text Styles are your own.

I see your point. Thanks.

[Gianni Becattini]

Sorry, I get lost in your discussion. I a short, was my mistake having deleted the Base style through "Delete unused styles"?

I don't remember (but cannot exclude) if I willingly deleted it. Can I now repair this condition?

However, I can confirm that the "Update styles" button fixes the situation; perhaps is only a workaround, ...but it works!

[Gianni Becattini]

@MikeTO I believe I realised that you also came in our "zona fessi", producing very good books for free...😁. It is difficult to translate "zona fessi" in English. Google translates it "Idiot zone", but this term is too strong and does not give the idea. 

Beside the fact that the same is applicable to me as well, I am only joking and don't want to be disrespectful. On the contrary, I greatly appreciate your work.