Hi Adrian

Adrian wrote:
The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather
than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices
uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from
Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these
simple rules:
[..]
IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't
think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half
a dozen of the other.

In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it
on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make
any sense to me.

I personally prefer to use "Body Text", but I agree: you can certainly
work both ways.

[I used to define Normal as something like 16 pt purple, so that
whenever I setup a template or work in a corresponding document, I
quickly see whethere there's still some paragraph that hasn't been
designated its proper style already. But this gets complicated when
working with tables, esp. when you _try_ to work with table styles.]

The biggest drawback about using normal productively is when you have to
deal with documents containing a lot of textboxes and such. Almost 100%,
Normal is assigned to their contents. Now, say, this document is pretty
unstyled so far and you need to bring it in-line with your company's CI
(as good as and ASAP). When you import another normal style from your
template, or change it manually, all those textboxes might run havoc.

Again, I agree, not a strong case ... :-)

Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word