with styles, is not master document functionality unnecessary+

users
#1

Readers,

Suppose a collection of documents each about 100kb size. What is the
benefit of using master document function (presumably a gratuitous
copy of m$), when styles function is available in LO? Surely it would
be more stable and easier to manage if these files were imported into
one new document?

#2

Master document are not only about sharing styles (in fact, I never saw
them in this light), it's about splitting your work in easily manageable
smaller files. I don't even know why having styles would concern having the
possibility to create a master document.
When you're working on a reasonnably large project, it's simply easier to
split it. For example, having each chapter in it's own file, instead of
loading one huge file​​. It's more stable and easier to navigate.
Ahem, still don't get why you're mixing the presence of styles and master
document. The only link I can think of is that a master document's style
override the sub-documents, but even then... maybe you can clarify what you
meant?

#3

Another benefit of master documents is that it forces all styles of the same name to appear the same. For example, suppose I have written five documents, all having a style called "BodySingle." But, in one document, my "BodySingle" style uses a Consolas font (good for on screen editing). In another, I have set the "BodySingle" font to "Iowan Old Style," a personal favorite of mine.

Now, let's say I combine these documents into a master document for final output. The styles of the master document will control over the styles of the individual files. So, in my master document, I set my "BodySingle" font to Linux Libertine G with a host of expert effects (old style numbers, historic or discretionary ligatures, etc.) This is great for printing a final document (to either a printer or PDF file), but not so effective for onscreen editing. So, I can change the final output by editing only the styles of the master document without having to edit the styles in each individual document.

Virgil

#4

e-letter wrote:

What is the benefit of using master document function (presumably a gratuitous

copy of m$), when styles function is available in LO?

For all practical purposes, the advantages and virtues of using Master Document functionality is completely irrelevant to the advantages and virtues of using Styles.

be more stable and easier to manage if these files were imported into one new document?

Whether it is more appropriate for the content to maintained as One Single File, One Master Document file, or 100 individual files, depends upon a dozen different factors, starting with the type of content, and ending up with the size of the components of that content.

Regardless of which approach is used (single document, master document, individual files), what is crucial, is that a named template be used, which is where all style changes are made.

jonathon

#5

Found a list of files in a directory, each file was quite small is
size. That's what started to think whether a master document is
appropriate or not. If styles are extensive in each of the small
files, importing them into a new file would be expected to retain
styles and therefore make navigation via 'navigator' to be more
convenient than opening multiple individual files

#6

​If I understand correctly, your files are not meant to get glued together,
but only to share styles.​
​In that case, there is several things to know:
- If the files already exists, you can "load" styles from one document to
another one. It will erase all styles in the current document that share a
name with the "loaded" ones, but subsequent changes in either files won't
be repercuted in the other.
- If you're creating new files, create a template beforehand (even an empty
one) that will be used to create your documents. By doing so, if you change
the styles in the template, when opening a file created with this template
it will prompt you about updating styles in the document. There's
effectively a link between the documents and the template
- Additionnaly, you can "create" that link between a document and a
template using the following extension:
http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/template-changer. By
doing so, updating the template will have the behavior described before, as
in it will prompt you to update the various independant files.

Note that this extension, while not updated for long, still work. However
having this feature built-in (the ability to change a document's "master"
template) would be nice.

#7

This might not be such a good idea. In MS Word, changing the template used to
be a major source of corruption and formatting problems. For all I know, it
still is.

#8

Maybe (I don't use MS Word). However, as this is the LO list, and we're
talking about LO usage of styles, I'm not sure how it would make this "not
a good idea" :)​​

#9

e-letter wrote:

What is the benefit of using master document function (presumably a gratuitous

copy of m$), when styles function is available in LO?

For all practical purposes, the advantages and virtues of using Master Document functionality is completely irrelevant to the advantages and virtues of using Styles.

be more stable and easier to manage if these files were imported into one new document?

Whether it is more appropriate for the content to maintained as One Single File, One Master Document file, or 100 individual files, depends upon a dozen different factors, starting with the type of content, and ending up with the size of the components of that content.

I've maintained content in all three forms.

jonathon