I’m trying to write a book in Writer using a Master Document for the first time. My question is, should I have all my text in one file? I assume not. So I have multiple documents, one for each chapter, which I understand are going to ‘subdocuments’ associated with the master document (odm). I’ve organizes these subdocuments into 3 separate folders, one for each part of the book. Is this a good approach? Also, should I always open these documents from the odm? Am I supposed to type anything into the odm document? Also, should I always save the changes to the odm file (it asks me everytime I open and close it).
Good idea. It makes sense especially for “very long” parts of your book.
If your chapters contain (more or less) images this will be okay. If not - let the subdocuments located in one folder.
No, edit your subdocuments as single documents. Only when collecting into a book then reference each of the subdocuments.
When opening the master document each of the subdocuments is in a state of read only.
Yes.
Addtional:
Think about a common template where each of the subdocuments and the master documents is derived of. Use the extension Template Changer.
For more information and hints check this website. You will find lots of questions/answers which are highly valuable!
1 Like
Master+sub-documents was necessary when computers where less capable than today. If your book does not exceed ~1000 pages with no illustrations (lower and lower depending on the number of illustrations with a threshold at ~ 500 pages), you really don’t need master+subs where performance is concerned. Nowadays, master + subs is mainly intended for documents composed from collections of hierarchy-approved clauses such as contracts where clauses can have several variants taken from a library.
But, if you go for master+subs, this assumes you format your book according to a strict methodology: styling. Your worst enemy is direct formatting, i.e. any formatting done outside styles, including the most disregarded one: vertical spacing with empty paragraphs. Direct formatting has a huge cost because every occurrence is unique and cannot be shared or common factored.
Direct formatting also has more harmful impact on master+subs than on ordinary documents. Links between the master and its subs is based on style name. In case you have the same style definition in several documents, first met wins. So, when your definitions are not consistent, you may be surprised by the result in the master (which is used for final production).
This in its turn highnly recommends the use of a common template for the master and the sub-documents. A template contains style definition. You are then guaranteed consistency (provided of course you tune your styles only in the template and not in the documents).
That said, you can organise your work any way convenient for you: a single folder for everything or a folder per part. It is up to you.
Not necessarily. The master allows you to open the subdocument for editing without the need to go to the menu or the file browser. It is only a convenience.
The answer is probably yes. You put in the master everything which is “common” to the subs, such as the TOC, alphabetical index, … I.e. everything which needs to be synthetised from data extracted from the subdocuments. It is also good practice to put in the master front material (cover page, copyright, legal data, …).
1 Like