[grammatim[_2_]]

On Jul 15, 7:51 am, "Robert M. Franz (RMF)"
wrote:
grammatim wrote:
I guess you've also never had to do elaborate cross references, fancy

define "elaborate" in this context ...

Ok, not even elaborate! For instance, I've just been doing a book
where the table title style is italic for "Table 4.1" and roman for
the text of the title. But a reference to the table by number is to be
roman -- and Word won't allow that, without special attention each
time a cross reference is inserted. And I can't do "see table 4.1 on
p. 206" without entering two separate references!

indexes (perhaps with custom sort orders),* or made a picture stay put
on a page while text flows around it ...

Well, even though Word's gotten better in this regard, _that's_ really
the thing that it will probably never be able to do as well as Frame.
Different model entirely.

For my new edition I have to switch to InDesign (because Adobe will
not give Unicode ability to FrameMaker), so I've read Mastering
InDesign CS3 by Pariah S. Burke (CS2 had no cross referencing ability
at all), and he is quite frank about the relationship with FrameMaker:
they've now imitated some of its capabilities -- the use of anchored
graphics is the big one in CS3 -- but by no means all. Their principal
interest has been competing with their own PageMaker (which InDesign
replaces) and QuarkXpress, which has never been, or been intended, for
book work. There's an InDesign plug-in available for E99 that can do
all sorts of cross reference things -- Burke notes that a great
strength of InDesign is its plug-in architecture, so that modules
don't interfere with each other, and so that you can turn off stuff
you don't use (thus I won't need any of its color capabilities) so as
to streamline its memory use and speed (and presumably reliability,
though he doesn't mention how crash-prone it may be).

For Philip Baldi's *Foundations of Latin*, there were about 20
indexes, including one for each Indo-European language that was cited,
and several of them use alphabetical orders different from that of
English.

Indexing is a pain even with the best tools at hand. I don't think
there's much in Word that lets you fiddle with the sort order, so, in
essence, you unlink the Index field and automate the ordering.

I learned Chicago table formatting when I was a manuscript editor at
Astrophysical Journal, and I don't think an astrophysicist is
constitutionally able to prepare a table that doesn't have footnotes
in it.

:-)

Granted, I may have worked more in the engineering and economics world,
but I've supported my share of arts papers as well. But again, table
footnotes makes two AutoTexts (one for the starting field, and one for
all the others). It's not that you can't do it in Word, there's just not
much support from scratch.

Likewise for endnotes in FrameMaker ... and, incredibly, they never
did learn that long footnotes need to split onto the next page! You
have to do it by chopping off the right number of lines from the
bottom and creating a new text frame on the next page (and pushing the
new page's own footnotes down out of the way!).