XNIP containing Dynamic Text ADOR Objects

[Tom Schicker]

Does anyone know if there is a way have a TEXT ADOR object within a XNIP formatted text that isn't tied to a specific Text object?

We'd like to create a XNIP formatted object that saves the following information:

       $XX

   in great offers

The XX will come from the data.  There is however, numerous data columns (10 to be exact) that this XNIP could be tied to.

So our uPlan has TEXT ADORS defined as follows:

Day1  Type: Text ADOR  Value:  45

Day2  Type: Text ADOR  Value:  60

Day3  Type: Text ADOR  Value:   5

....

Day n  Type:  Text ADOR   Value:  X

Instead of creating n-XNIP files with the internal XX tied to the specific TEXT ADOR, is there a way to create a single XNIP file that dynamically "passes" in the TEXT ADOR value?

So our uPlan would look something more like (assuming we have a xnip file named   greatoffers.xnip):

ADOR NAME:          Value                ADOR TYPE

Day1                        greatoffers.xnip   TextFile ADOR      (using the same XNIP file but this time renders  $45 for the variable element)

Day2                        greatoffers.xnip   TextFile ADOR      (using the same XNIP file but this time renders  $60 for the variable element)

etc.

Hope that makes sense.

Regards,

Tom

[J Stewart]

Tom,

Are you manipulating the XNIP files outside of uProduce / uPlan? Or are you looking for a script in uPlan? With a combination of variables and functions this should be pretty straight forward. If it not tied to a specific Text object, how is it being linked into the XLIM or INDD doc? Or are you saying you want one that references a single XNIP file?

Jeff

[Tom Schicker]

Jeff,

Thanks for your response.

You are correct, I would like to use a single XNIP file but somehow have the variable text object inside the xnip file be variable in the sense that I can somehow "pass into" the XNIP file the value I want displayed.  I'd like to know if there is a way to do this without having to manipulate the XNIP files outside of uProduce/uPlan.

To further clarify, I want to be able to have multiple TEXT FILE ADOR objects in my uPlan all calling the same XNIP file, but somehow having the value inside the xnip file change based either one another TEXT ADOR or variable(parameter). 

Tom

[couch]

You can put the recipient schema field name in the text file using {fieldname} - IE instead of |->[fieldname] you use the parenthesis character.

Then, in the InDesign document, you need to turn on nested composition by:

* Select the text box which contains the Text File ADOR (that will call the text asset) and...

* Use the text cursor to select the text file ador in the text frame.

* Right-click on the (now highlighted) text

* Select "Dynamic Text Properties"

* Check the box to turn on "Nested Composition"

XMPie will now evaluate the {} fields in the text file.

If you don't get the Dynamic Text Properties menu option when you right-click. - double check that you must have the text cursor, and you must highlight the Text File Ador in the text frame.

[Tom Schicker]

couch...thanks for your reply as well.  

I am familiar with the nested composition but I don't believe that addresses the question I currently have.  

The nested composition binds the {fieldname} to a specific recipient schema field name.  I was wondering if there was a way to use a single text file or XNIP file and "pass in" the recipient schema field name to the {fieldname}.   I don't want to have to create multiple XNIP files that all look exactly the same with the exception of the value in the {fieldname}.  My understanding is that the {fieldname} is bound to a specific recipient schema field name.  I need to be able to some how call the same XNIP file or Text File and get similar outputs with the exception of the value in {fieldname}.

Is this possible without manipulating the XNIP or Text File outside of uPlan or Uproduce?

[J Stewart]

Tom,

Have you tried using a JavaScript (or other) function inside of uPlan to generate the content that you want to pass into the XNIP file? I've had a lot of success at abstracting complex needs this way.

Jeff