We use track text edits in our documents (using FM 10). However, we have noticed that when looking for the edits (i.e. by clicking "show next"), it skips over some edited content. Does anyone know why or how to fix this? Thanks!
Which point version of FM10 (i.e. is it patched to the last released version 10.0.2)?
Are there any conditional text indicators being used?
Is there anything similar to the edited text that is being skipped over (e.g. having a condition applied, containing a specific character tag or having a specific paratag applied, etc.)?
Is all the edit content in the same Flow?
Normally, find operations don't find things in natural order when the text in question is in anchored frames or tables. I've not used the Track Edits feature but wouldn't be at all surprised if next/prev are traversing the same data structures that Find uses, and with the same darty behavior for non-mainline text.
I just updated to 10.0.2, and it didn't correct the problem.
I'm not sure whether we are using other conditional text indicators. Can you give me examples of what that might mean?
We don't typically perform searches like we do with the track text edits, but I just tested it, and it appeared to catch all of the paragraph tag and character formats I searched for.
Yes, I believe everything is in the same flow. The first time we noticed the issue was in a table, so we thought that must be the issue. However, it happened again within a chapter that only contains text, so it must be something else altogether. I looked at the chapter again, and could pinpoint the place in the chapter where it would find the tracked text. It appears that there was a footnote that had a red section symbol (i.e. text symbol) at the end of it. I had to entirely replace the footnote so that the section symbol was black. Now it finds all of the tracked text with no problem. So, apparently that section symbol stopped the search function for some reason. It still isn't working properly in the document with the tables, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that it is searching tables and not just straight text.
Do either of you know how to turn those section symbols black? Right now, they appear in black, green (i.e. added via track text edits), and red (i.e. deleted via track text edits). We can't seem to accept (or reject) the change associated with the section symbol.
I apologize for the delay in responding - I was getting an error when trying to reply yesterday. Thank you both for responding and helping me troubleshoot!
If the footnote section symbols (I'm assuming that you mean the "§" symbol) shows the deleted/added markup with the Track Text Edits enabled, then something is funky in the document. Only the content of the footnote paragraph should be shown with the markup.
Perhaps try doing a MIFwash (e.g. save as MIF, open thee MIF vrsion and re-save as FM binary) to see if this cleans out the cruft.