Copy into document graphics vs. Import by Reference

[Combs, Richard]

Scott White wrote:
 
> We ALWAYS copy into document. This allows us to pass the file 
> around without breaking the links to the graphics. It may 
> take a little longer to do our books, but I feel it equals 
> out since we don't have to hassle with broken links. As far 
> as paginating our books, we just break our files down a 
> little smaller and this makes the files fast enough to work with. 

Why do you have to "pass the file around"? I'm not sure I even
understand what that means, but if all of a book's FM files are in a
directory, and all its graphics are in a subdirectory of that, then you
can "pass around" the directory without breaking anything. 

In fact, more complicated schemes with shared graphics work without
breaking as long as relative paths remain the same (don't cross the root
of a drive, or the paths become absolute). So if you mean working
locally and then copying to a server (which is what I do), you just
maintain the same directory structure in both places. In fact, there are
utilities that will keep the local and remote directories in sync.

But I'm with Neil -- the biggest advantage of referenced graphics for me
is being able to replace screen shots with newer versions and have the
FM docs update automatically when I open them. I update graphics _far_
more often than I move files around. 

IMHO, YMMV, etc. 

Richard


------
Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
303-223-5111
------
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom
303-777-0436
------