Master Document

Using LibreOffice 4.1.5 on Win 7 home premium:

I have a master document with 50 sub-documents. The problem I am having is that the sub-documents are not rendered the same way when opened separately as when opened in the master document.

This is a bilingual dictionary with an English-Neapolitan section and a Neapolitan-English section. Each letter of each section is contained in its own sub-document. For each letter, at the top of the page, on left (even numbered) pages, there appears the first word on the page, left-justified, in slightly larger font, and on right (odd numbered) pages, the last word on the page, right-justified and in slightly larger font.

This cannot be accomplished using headers since it must be different on each page. Well, I suppose it could be accomplished using headers but it would require a separate style for every page in the nearly 400 page book. Consequently, I have used the first line on each page for this purpose with the regular text pushed down and beginning on the fourth line.

This has a very aesthetically pleasing appearance in the sub-documents, but in the master document the line spacing is obviously not rendered in the same way so that on some pages in the master document, the first line will be what was the last line in the previous page of the sub-document, pushing the headline word down... and obviously unusable.

Is there some reason why the master document does not render the sub-documents in the same was as they are rendered when opened separately?

Dale Erwin

I have a master document with 50 sub-documents. The problem I am having is that the sub-documents are not rendered the same way when opened separately as when opened in the master document.

Surely that is how master documents work? The master document, for example, defines the page style; consequently such properties of the subdocuments as headers and footers and margins are overridden by those defined for the master document. In addition, new styles in subdocuments are automatically imported into a master document, but similarly named styles do not overwrite existing styles there. So styled text can change its appearance - including, obviously, size and thus layout - as it appears in the master document.

... at the top of the page, on left (even numbered) pages, there appears the first word on the page, left-justified, in slightly larger font, and on right (odd numbered) pages, the last word on the page, right-justified and in slightly larger font. [...] ... I have used the first line on each page for this purpose with the regular text pushed down and beginning on the fourth line.

There is really no such thing in word-processing terms as lines on a page, only vertical spacing. (Lines went out with typewriters.) So you shouldn't be thinking of "the fourth line" in this context. You might well do better to set whatever spacing you need as "spacing below paragraph" in the paragraph styles you use for your headings.

This has a very aesthetically pleasing appearance in the sub-documents, but in the master document the line spacing is obviously not rendered in the same way so that on some pages in the master document, the first line will be what was the last line in the previous page of the sub-document, pushing the headline word down... and obviously unusable.

You might be able to improve the effect you need by paying attention to the particular way you achieve in the subdocuments the layout you need, as suggested above. Your mention of "a very aesthetically pleasing appearance" is a giveaway: you need to pay attention to the structure of your subdocuments, not just their appearance, if you want them to carry over appropriately into the master document. Does your text simply flow from page to page, for another example, or do you use explicit page breaks (possibly included as a paragraph or paragraph style property)? Better the latter.

I trust this helps.

Brian Barker

​One possibility is that there is a style conflict/override.
​Master document's styles override sub-document's. If you have the same
stule name in both the master document and the sub document, you will see
the master document's version only.

This is usually a neat feature​ (you can produce various output style for
the same sub-document), but might be a bit confusing. Even more confusing
is that this include page styles too, and that point is easily overlooked.

If you simply want all styles in the master document to be the same as in a
sub-document, you can try this: open the master document, open the format
list if not already open. In the "style and format" toolbar (or sidebar),
there is a button in the top-right corner (probably called "new style from
selection" in english). Click it, and select "load styles", then "from a
file", then select one of your sub-document.
​These step should replace all styles in the master document with the one
in the sub-document. If this does fix your issue, remember to change only
styles in the master document to keep all of them "in sync".​

​Of course, if that's not the issue at hand, feel free to dismiss my little
rant :)​

Hi :slight_smile:
Arrgh, that approach sounds like it might be worth creating a new
"master document" and then
1. import the existing master document into that (in the way Cley described)
2. go into styles and modify the important ones to rename them

3. use Cley's advice to import the styles from the first sub-document
4. again rename the important changed styles

5 repeat 3&4 for each sub-document

This almost certainly wont be perfect first time so don't aim to do to
much or be too perfect, just treat it as a test-run to find out which
styles need to be renamed.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi :slight_smile:
Is it possible to completely disable all the styles in a master
document so that the ones from the sub-document do remain untouched?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I would think that would take away the benefit of a master document. By having the style controlled by one master document, you get consistent formatting throughout. If that could be disabled, you could have different chapters with different formatting all because one or two chapter files had their styles set up differently.

I like the control provided by the master document. It frees me up to not think so much about formatting in my sub-documents knowing that the master will fix it all.

For example, I can create subdocuments using a Consolas font, an excellent typeface for onscreen editing. Then, I set the master document with Linux Libertine G, a great font for publishing, but not so great for onscreen editing. When I go to compile and print, voila, my master document is perfectly formatted, changing Consolas to Libertine *and* fixing any minor style deviations I may have inadvertently created.

Virgil

Hi :slight_smile:
Is it possible to completely disable all the styles in a master
document so that the ones from the sub-document do remain untouched?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

That should not be necessary if you follow the instructions for creating a master document. First you create a template which has all the styles defined in it. Then the master document and all subdocuments are created from this template. The only problem is that if changes to any style becomes necessary, I've not found any way to make the changes in one place and have them take effect in all files which were alreated created before the changes were made. Up to now, I've had to make such changes in the template as well as in each file which has already been created from the template.

... the instructions for creating a master document. First you create a template which has all the styles defined in it. Then the master document and all subdocuments are created from this template. The only problem is that if changes to any style becomes necessary, I've not found any way to make the changes in one place and have them take effect in all files which were already created before the changes were made.

I don't think you generally need to do this. It's surely not important to be able to see any such changes in the subdocuments: what matters is only how the final (master) document appears. If your structure is right and you change the styles in the master document, you should have all that you need.

Up to now, I've had to make such changes in the template as well as in each file which has already been created from the template.

Unless you are going to create further subdocuments (and possibly not even then), there is no point in changing the template, I think. But if you do, you get a chance to update documents created from the template to use any modified styles when you next open those documents, so you should not need to make changes "as well as in each file" - only perhaps to open those files, accept the offer, and re-save them.

I trust this helps.

Brian Barker

I would think that would take away the benefit of a master document. By
having the style controlled by one master document, you get consistent
formatting throughout. If that could be disabled, you could have
different chapters with different formatting all because one or two
chapter files had their styles set up differently.

But what if someone *wanted* the formatting to be controlled by the sub document(s)?

I like the control provided by the master document. It frees me up to
not think so much about formatting in my sub-documents knowing that the
master will fix it all.

Having the option one way or another (the current way as default makes sense though) provides more control, no?

Hi :slight_smile:
Thanks :slight_smile: yeh, my interpretation of what the "original poster" asked
is that he is looking for exactly that. More like css than the
sensible way it is done at the moment.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

I agree, Brian, that one generally need need to worry about style precision in subdocuments, since the master document controls the final output. That's the beauty of the master document process. It's almost LyX-like in its execution (what you see is what you /mean/).

But, I sense that the way Dale is creating his "faux headers" in his subdocuments, he needs an accurate wysiwyg display on each page of each subdocument, which would, of course, require that each subdocument have styles that exactly match those of the master document so that, while he's editing, he can have total comfort that the final output will be as he's created it.

So, instead of looking at this as a possible bug (which it isn't), perhaps pursue a feature request to have a Field that would pick up the first and last words of each page. Then he could put just the field in a true header and have the perfect solution.

Virgil

But what if someone *wanted* the formatting to be controlled by the sub document(s)?

[snip]

Having the option one way or another (the current way as default makes sense though) provides more control, no?

I suppose having options is generally a good thing, but I'd much rather create and change formatting in one master document than have to change and synchronize 20 or 30 subdocuments to make sure they all work together. Is it better to encourage people to learn better methods of working or to keep giving them the option of using older, less proficient, methods?

Just philosophizing for a second, I think one of the drawbacks of office suites in general is their attempt to be all things to all people. If you were raised on the typewriter model and don't want to learn a better way, you can apply direct formatting to each and every paragraph of each and every document as you type, without regard to styles. If you prefer styles and templates, you can take full advantage of them. As a result, most tasks can be performed in at least four or five ways -- i.e. keyboard shortcuts, menus (accessible through either the keyboard or mouse), toolbars, direct formatting, styles, etc.

But, by having so many options, people retain the option of never learning, never growing, into more proficient document creators. Having too many options keeps it easy to stagnate and continue to work harder.

I teach a technology for paralegals class at our local university, and I cringe when I get to the section on office suites. Following someone's advice (Tom, I think), I recently gave my students a six-page unformatted computer file along with a printed copy of the same document, fully formatted. I asked them to use whatever methods they normally use and reformat the computer file to make it look like the printed product. Using direct formatting, they each spent about 45 minutes and ended up with a mess. I had one student declare that, in order to achieve the desired result, she would simply delete the text from the document and retype the whole thing, formatting as she typed. She had no clue even how to directly reformat existing text. I then demonstrated how I could reformat the entire document in 4 minutes using styles. Even so, the resistance to learning styles remains high. Perhaps, we could get folks past the Underwood model if office suites stopped offering that as a legitimate option for creating typeset documents. Instead, in order to placate those users who remain in the (early) 20th century, office suites still have to provide a typewriter style method of working. By retaining old methods to satisfy those who refuse to grow, we have poor Brian still trying to get people to stop thinking in terms of "line spacing" (good luck with that).

Of course, I realize that office suites can't be so elitist as to insist on one way of working. There are too many different methods of achieving results, and we have to accept people where they are. But, it is so sad to see people remain stuck in outdated technological methods simply because their computer programs continue to permit it.

Oh, well, enough of an early morning rant.

Virgil

I suppose having options is generally a good thing, but I'd much rather
create and change formatting in one master document than have to change
and synchronize 20 or 30 subdocuments to make sure they all work
together. Is it better to encourage people to learn better methods of
working or to keep giving them the option of using older, less
proficient, methods?

But who is to say *your* method is better? I can definitely see situations where someone would *want* the formatting from the subdocument to be applied, and vice versa.

But, by having so many options, people retain the option of never
learning, never growing, into more proficient document creators. Having
too many options keeps it easy to stagnate and continue to work harder.

In many cases this is true, but if you take that too far... why provide the option to have 3rd party fonts?

The bottom line is, just because *you* would do something a certain way doesn't mean everyone else will want to do it your way.

Of course, you are right, which is why I said it is "elitist" to think that *my* way is the *best* way.

I suppose people can still build spreadsheets by inserting numbers into cells and then pulling out their pocket calculators to add up the column of numbers (I've seen my students do that).

Or they can individually format all of the paragraphs of 20 or more individual documents to write a book.

Liberty means the freedom to do things the hard way if you want. I won't deny anyone that freedom. But, if I can save them from it, I will.

Virgil

As a person who learned to type on a typewriter and learned programming on a mainframe computer [since the PC did not exist at that time], I have not learned how to do "styles". Never really needed it, as far as I was concerned. Yes, yes, I should learn it, but time to learn and play with styles is not an option for me currently.

The key is, if people can do what they need, they way they currently do it, then why try to force them to learn how to do it another way - i.e. styles.

I have heard horror stories of "style gone wild" within a document. Too many times I hear of, and try to edit, a document that has styles within styles, or at least it seems to be, and too many formatting conflicting things that make a document very hard to edit if you do not know "what the heck the author was thinking of" style options built into the document.

K.I.S.S - keep it simple stupid - was what we were taught in the pre-PC days of programming. Sometimes it is a real pain when a person creates such a complexly formatted document - that does not need to be so complex - that you must wonder what was the author thinking of while he/she formatted their document.

So, I have not learned styles. I keep my formatting simple [most of the times] and it is easy to go back months later and edit and expand me documents. I do not have to remember what type of formatting I had buried in a "style" or some other "hidden" formatting aide.

I know that others would "gasp in horror" on me use of LO in such an "old" and simplistic way. "This is the 21st century" and other ideas that try to make people feel what they are doing is too old fashion to be used in a modern society.

But, LO was made to be a office suite. Writer was made to be a word processor. Sure you can go "all out" and use it as a desktop publisher and other document formatter that does strange an wonderfully eye-catching things to the text, but do we all need to learn how to do those things? Do we all need to use them to create and format our documents? No, I should hope not.

I was taught K.I.S.S as a programmer, and I have not removed that idea in my documents. Sure, I am ramble on at times, but my documents are simply formatted and easy to edit. "Easy to edit and modify" was key back in my "learning days". so I would have to unlearn that if I was to use styles like many people seem to think I am required to.

That it my opinion
Tim L.
former DEC mainframe programmer and supported of LO since it first came out.

I was taught K.I.S.S as a programmer, and I have not removed that idea in
my documents.

​A small comment on the KISS concept: "simple" does not necessarily mean
minimalist, or immediately accessible, it can mean "easy" too. Even simple
things like keeping headings formatting consistent is not simple to do by
hand: you have to give every heading the same formatting (font size,
characters modifiers...), and if you need to change them for some obscur
reason, you have to loop over all your headings by hand to do so. Surely as
a programmer you can see the problem here :slight_smile:

Now, if you're not familiar with styles, you'll see them as "hidden"
formattin aide, or think they have changes "buried" deep down. And indeed,
it is possible to do extremely complicated things (know that styles are
cascading, can inherit from their parent, and the final formatting of a
character is a combination of page style, paragraph style, character style,
paragraph formatting and character formatting).
But it doesn't mean you have to go all out with this. You can have a flat
list of two-three styles and stick to them. They will sit there, on the
right of you screen (or wherever you've put the style toolbar). Nothing's
hidden, nothing's buried in the depth of style micro-managing... and *that*
is what some peoples (including myself) see as the "simple" part of KISS :slight_smile:

​If you're mixing style and direct formatting though, there you're asking
for trouble. It's possible too, but at this point you have to remember too
many layers of formatting (in my opinion).

But, LO was made to be a office suite. Writer was made to be a word

processor. Sure you can go "all out" and use it as a desktop publisher and
other document formatter that does strange an wonderfully eye-catching
things to the text, but do we all need to learn how to do those things? Do
we all need to use them to create and format our documents? No, I should
hope not.

You point out that LO is an office suite, and not a desktop publisher...
but the thing is, it is. As with everything you don't have to use all these
functionalities, but they are present, and used by many (even on this list
we get every once in a while someone with some questions regarding
publishing with LO).​ But, if you don't have to learn how to use them, you
have to know they exist to avoid misusing them. If one keep all it's typing
in the "standard" style and does everything by hand, it's fine, but if you
start mixing both, and then push them in a master document, you should know
what to expect, even if you don't want to use this.

My apologies to Kracked, as I didn't pay attention and sent this note directly when I intended to send it to the list.

As a person who learned to type on a typewriter and learned
programming on a mainframe computer [since the PC did not exist at
that time], I have not learned how to do "styles". Never really
needed it, as far as I was concerned. Yes, yes, I should learn it,
but time to learn and play with styles is not an option for me currently.

The key is, if people can do what they need, they way they currently
do it, then why try to force them to learn how to do it another way -
i.e. styles.

Within the provenance of this discussion, you are right that it is not the job of the software writers/programmers to force anyone to learn a way other than the one they are using. However, it is also not the job of the software writers/programmers to build into any particular software every method of doing things.

That philosophy leads to bloat, and bloat is bad, in my opinion. It also leads to stealing time from the task of adding new features and improving existing features. The writers/programmers have a finite amount of time. If the feature request mentioned earlier in this thread is accepted, then time will be spent on it. That means that time will not be spent on other things. And that, in my opinion, is waste.

Doug

This is so not even remotely reasonable analogy it really irks me.

Please don't be a smart ass.

There are numerous *legitimate* reasons that someone might want the formatting for different sections of a Master Document to be handled by the sub documents.

Oh, the hazards of e-communication. You neither heard the tone of my voice nor saw the twinkle of my eye. It was an (obviously unsuccessful) attempt to illustrate by obvious exaggeration. Here in Ohio, it would have gotten a chuckle. I did not mean to irk, so please forgive me.

I imagine that there are, indeed, legitimate reasons why someone would want to control a master document through the sub-documents, but I would strongly suggest that before going that route, the user completely learns how to use the master documents the way they were designed. In the process, they just might find what they're looking for. I can't tell you the number of times I have found myself using LyX or Atlantis, or some other program because I believed "it couldn't be done with LO." Then after a little self-education, I find that it, indeed, *can* be done with LO, and I just wasted a lot of time using another program.

My larger point, to which I still hold, is that far too many people do not take full advantage of their computers. Now, you might say this is a matter of personal preference, and so it is. But, in my profession (law), if a client is paying his lawyer $200.00/hour to write a legal brief, he'll save money if the lawyer learns how to fully use templates and styles. I've watched lawyers spend hours (at $200 a crack) typing a table of authorities, when MS Word or WordPerfect can automatically generate one in minutes. So, in *some* instances, our personal preferences *can* affect other people.

And, my second point was that people continue to use less effective methods because office suites continue to make them available in their attempts to be "one size fits all" programs. While I agree it is necessary for them to remain marketable, I think it is unfortunate.

Virgil

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
I didn't think i had time to learn styles either but found that just
reading the first few paragraphs in the Published Guides took me about
10mins and immediately saved me at least 20mins, maybe an hour! I
still don't know much about them but each time i learn a little more i
find it saves me tons of time.

I've vaguely heard of cost-benefit analysis but saving time is relevant too.

If you don't want to save yourself tons of time then don't spend a few
minutes reading up on styles [shrugs]. It's only yourself that is
losing out. None of the people advising you to use the easier ways
gain anything by doing so.

wrt problematic documents with tons of styles buried inside of them
they were probably using styles as implemented by MS Office. The
LibreOffice styles can quickly clear away all that junk.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile: