Step 3's misnumbered - continued from previous Step 2

[ymcconney]

Using Arbortext 6.1 M030.  I have the following in the middle of my document (tags color-coded to help visually -- assuming the colors show up here):

[step2>

            [para> (6) Text here... <para]

[step3>

                  [para> (a) More text... <para]

<step3]

[step3>

                  [para> (b) Still more text... <para]

<step3]

<step2]

[step2>

            [para> (7) Yada... <para]

[step3>

                  [para> (c) Yada yada... <para]

<step3]

[step3>

                  [para> (d) Yada yada yada... <para]

<step3]

<step2]

Can anyone tell me how to make the step3's start over at (a) for (7), instead of continuing from the previous step3's?  Clearly this is not the expected behavior.

Thanks,

Mic

[rkarlík]

If you use Arbortext Styler then in Category - Generated text - button Details ... - button Restart ...

[ymcconney]

Thanks, but no Styler here...

[rdiaz]

Hi Yasuhiro,

This is handled by the stylesheet, which is why Richard mentioned Styler.

If you're using an Arbortext stylesheet, then you really do need Styler to change this.

You may also be using FOSI, and if so, you would use the 'eic' command from the command line to bring up the FOSI Editor.

[mbarron]

First, I apologize -- I inadvertently posted the original question while I was logged into my boss' account.  Of course I was exposed when he received the email update!  Moving on...

I understand what you're saying about the stylesheet; however, this was not a problem in 5.3.  The numbering for step3's worked just fine.  So did 6.1 introduce a bug that made this stop working, or did it change the way you implement this?  Restarting the numbering (see original example) should be default behavior.

So does anyone know of a workaround?  Is there not a setting, an attribute, that can be changed on the fly so the numbering for step3's restarts with each step2?  If it does come down to editing the stylesheet, how do we know what to "fix", since it wasn't broken before we moved to 6.1?

I'm asking these questions because we cannot actually edit our own stylesheet -- we're a contractor at a government facility, and the process for getting the government to update the stylesheet is not entirely clear, which process is most likely labyrinthian and arcane.  We don't have access to Styler ourselves, but being a former software engineer, I have no doubt I could handle it if I were given the tools, or if there was a "backdoor way" to edit the stylesheet.

Any further enlightenment would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Mic

[rdiaz]

Hi Mic,

Glad you got the email from your boss!

A lot changed between 5.3 and 6.1, so it's not surprising to see some changes.  I really cannot think of a change that would affect your output like this, but obviously something happened.  So why this is happening depends on a few things:

What doctype is being used?

What stylesheet is being used?

Are any customizations or third party utilities involved?

Unfortunately, either way it looks like you may need to go to the government, and ask if they have an updated version of the stylesheet, but we'll try to provide any feedback or evidence you can show them to move the process forward.

[mbarron · Accepted solution]

Hello Rafael,

Thanks for your reply.  It got me digging into things a little, and I actually got to looking at the stylesheet itself.  It looked a little daunting, of course, but having been a software engineer in a previous life, I decided to push through.  I found multiple element definitions for step3, named "numbering_step3_sub1" through "...sub8".  Each of these had a property named "numberScope" that was set to "step1".  On a hunch I changed it to "step2" (I used Wordpad as my editor), and that seemed to fix the problem!  I also noticed similar step4 elements (the misnumbering issue also happened with step4's, I discovered).  I changed the step4 numberScope to "step3", and that also fixed the problem.

I checked the stylesheet that we use for Arbortext 5.3, and it has the same "errors".  But we don't have the same numbering problem with 5.3.  So my theory is that 5.3 just ignores the explicit "numberScope" setting and simply defaults "numberScope" to the next level up.

My only other question is whether you can think of any other potential problems I might cause by changing this one property (numberScope).  It certainly seems isolated enough.

Thanks,

Mic

[TimPhelps]

Did your solution of setting of the attribute value numberScope to the parent stepX resolve your issue?

If so, the please indicate the correct entry to the thread so that the community knows the solution.