I have always been impatient with editors and reviewers who
insist on changes being flagged. In my view, this is the lazy
person's way of doing a half-hearted job. They don't want to look
at anything but the changes. I wouldn't handle my contributors that
way; why let reviewers off the hook?
The underlying assumption is the material was at least
correct, if not perfect, before changes and doesn't warrant a
second look. A foolish assumption. Additionally, this approach will
fail to spot contradictions and inconsistencies between new
material and earlier text that wasn't revised.
Yet I can and will suggest a tool, one I would never use for
editorial review, that pinpoints with dead-on accuracy any
differences between files.
It's useful for controlling the publishing process and for
checking back on what RH has published between versions.
An inexpensive application available on the Web is Beyond
Compare. It will let you set up side-by side (or above-and-below)
comparisons with options for various degrees of control, such as
file revision level, date/time stamps, file size and so on. You can
flag files that differ by checksum or as little as a binary value.
You can open a mismatched pair and review differences line by line.
You can even suppress the display of files and lines with no
changes.
That's my rant for today. Good luck.
Harvey