RW Rules vs EDD Conflict

[Dave.Stamm at gdc4s.com]

2013-03-07-04T13:15Z

 

Lisa -

 

The following has worked for us.

 

element "graphic" 

{

is fm graphic element;
[ << Note the order of the words here. ]

attribute "boardno" is fm property entity; }

 

Good luck and

 

Regards,

Dave Stamm

Information Engineer

 

From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Lisa Freeman
Sent: 2013-03-06-Wednesday 09:59
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: RW Rules vs EDD Conflict

 

Many thanks to Ian and Scott for your suggestions, but unfortunately
this is still not working for me. I've tried both methods below as well
as every combination of the two I could think of. 

 

After pouring through all the reference material I have, I am still
stumped on this. Does anyone else have any ideas where my disconnect is?

 

 

>From Scott Prentice:

 

Try changing your rules to this (don't need the "Graphic" in the first
rule) ..

element "Graphic"
{
is fm graphic element;
fm property entity value is "illus";
}

 

 

From: Ian Proudfoot [mailto:ian.proudfoot at itp-x.co.uk] 
Sent: 03 01, 2013 7:26 AM
To: Lisa Freeman; framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RE: RW Rules vs EDD Conflict

 

Hi Lisa,

I think you have misunderstood the rules a little. So try this:

 

element "Graphic"

{

is fm graphic element "Graphic";

attribute "illus" is fm property entity;

}

 

This will work if the "illus" attribute is defined as type ENTITY in the
DTD.

In your EDD remove the attribute definition for "illus". This will not
be needed in the FrameMaker environment because the read/write rule is
converting the XML attribute into a FrameMaker property. The type
mismatch was because the attribute was defined as an Integer in the EDD.


 

If the DTD does not define "illus" as ENTITY, then use this rule
instead:

attribute "illus" is fm property file;

 

That's all from memory, so I hope it all works for you.

 

Ian

 

Ian PROUDFOOT

Technical Director

www.antea.fr 

 

3 rue Etienne Dolet | 93400 Saint-Ouen | France

Tel : + 44 (0)7793 324 581

 

 

From: framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces at lists.frameusers.com] On Behalf Of Lisa Freeman
Sent: 28 February 2013 18:36
To: framers at lists.frameusers.com
Subject: RW Rules vs EDD Conflict

 

 

Hello All,

 

I am working a project using FrameMaker 8.0p277.

 

I have a conflict between my Read-Write Rules and my template (my EDD, I
presume) that has me stumped. When I do a check of my rules I get the
following error:

 

"Type mismatch for the FrameMaker element (Graphic). The type defined by
the read/write rules is different from that defined by the template." 

 

The link takes me to the "is fm graphic element" statement below.

 

My rules are:

element "Graphic" 

{

is fm graphic element "Graphic";

fm property entity value is "illus";

}

 

And I have the following defined in my EDD:

 

Element (Graphic): Graphic

Attribute list

Name: illus          Integer                 Required 

Initial graphic element format

In all contexts.

Insert imported graphic file.

 

Am I missing something that is totally obvious to anyone? 

 

Thanks in advance for any suggestions!

 

 

Sincerely,

Lisa Freeman

Publication Support Analyst

 

O'NEIL & ASSOCIATES, INC. <http://www.oneil.com> 

 


**********************************************************************
Confidentiality Notice
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and intended
for use only by the person(s) or organization listed in the address. If
you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender
at O'Neil & Associates, Inc., immediately. Any copying, dissemination,
or distribution of this communication, other than by the intended
recipient, is strictly prohibited.
**********************************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.frameusers.com/pipermail/framers-frameusers.com/attachments/20130307/522c7155/attachment.htm>