On 2012-09-27, Roger wrote:
I don't think there is a "rule" for this at DP. If you want to attempt it, get DP management to buy off on it first and then be very clear in the project instructions that the users' work is not going to be taken to a finished book on the DP site. I believe some users would choose not to work on a project, especially with LOTE rules, that is only doing P1 and P2. That's not the DP workflow.
If you were to get that done, I understand that the P2 output is the RTT in your scheme. That means that anyone who derives a final version (HTML, epub, kf8 etc. file) from it has to find and handle all the markup like intalics and superscripts on their own. It's not coded in the RTT if it's coming out of P2, since formatting is not present in the proofing stages, even inline formatting. That is a serious shortcoming to me.
Interesting. I was thinking it would be better to just do P1 and P2 on the basis that the rounds were so imbalanced and this would help. What you are indicating is that there is a higher chance of successfully getting Louise on side if we were to do a full workflow. This would, of course, work fine. The only abnormality would be we would pull off P3 output, do the diff against the extant text (giving us actually an even cleaner RTT), then push the RTT back in as F1 input. You also indicate that what the snapshot that _you_ would actually like is essentially F2, which again points to a full workflow. Is this a reasonable interpretation? Cheers Jon