I've discovered a problem with the scheme we're using to place rules under table heads in this job: If we insert a blank row beneath the heads and apply the rules necessary to that row, the blank row will disappear when the formatting macro is run, as that macro removes blank rows. This won't be a big deal on this first conversion; on subsequent cycles, however, this will require a large amount of re-work if the values of these tables are edited to the degree that the formatting macro needs to be run again. I think it likely that re-inserting the rows will be forgotten. Perhaps its time to consider whether clients with specific requirements, such as this, that require clunky work-arounds to deliver the desired output should use this tool in the first place.I am to be chastised, it seems, for the last sentence in that note. The issue being, I gather, that these notes can be seen system-wide. So, a new person just getting trained on this new tool could see this note and *gasp, horror!* learn that not all is puppies and butterflies in the workings of things.
I tried, really I did, to be incredibly diplomatic in the tone of my note. You'll notice I didn't say that doing the whole blank row for table head rules is dumb. I didn't bring up the fact that we're being asked to add two points of lead following the total rules on all the tables for no good reason. I didn't mention at all that the instructions given to us to perform the various tricks necessary to get through the hoops for this client were very incomplete and difficult to follow. The only impolitic word in the note, as far as I can see, is "clunky."
And this requires meetings.