Publishers and production providers
When the review arrives as a PDF, but the real change has to be incorporated into the master document: Word, IDML, XML, HTML or another production file.
Product page
Who Insert My Comments is for
Insert My Comments is for editorial, technical and documentation teams that receive commented PDFs and need to bring those revisions back into the editable source document.
IMC is relevant if this work appears in your team
Typesetters and technical proofreaders
When the job is not “correcting the PDF”, but locating each comment, finding the exact point in the source and applying the intervention without breaking the document.
Documentation departments
When there are long documents, versions, repeated workflows, accumulated reviews and a need to keep track of what has been applied, what remains uncertain and what should not be touched.
Teams working with XML and markup languages
When the reviewed PDF comes from a structured system and the corrections need to return to XML in general, including vocabularies and markup languages such as DocBook, TEI, DITA, HTML or XHTML.
Real work
Comments do not arrive like they do in a lab
In theory, some ecosystems have their own tracks for returning comments from a PDF to the document that generated it.
In real editorial work, PDFs arrive as they arrive: generated by third parties, reviewed by several people, with sticky notes, highlights, long instructions, doubts, noise and comments that are not always text ready to insert.
IMC is designed for that editorial mess:
- Commented PDFs that already exist.
- Human comments, not always clean.
- Sources that may not be Word.
- A need to review before applying.
- Uncertain, not applicable or risky cases.
Native tracks and cross-format bridge
Where closed tracks are not enough
Native tracks
Word, InDesign or FrameMaker may have their own review and return paths, more or less closed, within their own ecosystem.
They work best when the document is created, exported, commented and returned inside the same circuit.
The IMC territory
IMC focuses on the bridge between a commented PDF and the real editable source that the team needs to correct.
It does not require everything to have started inside a perfect track. It works through location, proposal, review and controlled application.
XML and markup languages
An especially strong territory
IMC is especially interesting when the source document is not just a visual file, but structured text with tags: XML, XML vocabularies such as DocBook, TEI or DITA, and markup languages such as HTML or XHTML.
XML
DocBook
TEI
DITA
HTML
XHTML
XML DocBook
→
Generated PDF
→
Reviewed PDF
→
Corrections to the markup source
In these workflows, a correction marked visually in the PDF does not return by itself to the structured document. It has to be located in the source text, kept in context and reviewed before applying.
What it provides
What the team buys is not just speed
Less manual searching
Reduces the work of copying, switching windows, searching, checking, pasting and repeating comment after comment.
More control
Before applying, the user sees the proposal, the source fragment, the context and the status of each intervention.
Better traceability
Applicable, uncertain, not applicable or reviewable cases remain separated and documented.
More reliable location
IMC does not stop at the first match that appears. It checks the marked text against its context to reduce the risk of applying a correction in the wrong place.
Editorial desk
How IMC works
1
PDF on the left
The user keeps the visual reference of the original review.
2
Source on the right
The editable document becomes the real place of application.
3
Reviewable proposals
IMC does not apply blindly: it prepares changes that can be accepted, edited or discarded.
4
States and risks
Traffic lights, not applicable cases and warnings help prioritize human review.
AI with limits
AI to interpret comments and review context
Artificial intelligence does not come in to rewrite documents or replace editorial judgment.
It comes in at two specific moments: when the comment box is not prepared to be inserted literally, and when a proposal needs to be checked in its context before being applied.
It can help to:
- Extract the useful core from a comment box.
- Separate instruction, doubt or noise from final text.
- Detect comments that should not be inserted.
- Review whether the proposal fits the resulting sentence.
- Flag small contextual effects before applying.
It is worth saying this too
Who it is not for
It is not for one-off PDF editing
IMC is not intended as a PDF editor or as a cosmetic tool on top of the final file.
It is not for applying everything without looking
Human review is part of the workflow. IMC speeds up, organizes and warns; it does not remove judgment.
It does not turn any PDF into a clean source
The goal is not to reconstruct documents from scratch, but to return comments to the operational source.
How to try it
A guided test, not an anonymous sign-up
IMC fits best when reviewed with real team documents: types of PDF, source format, comment volume, uncertain cases and the concrete way changes are applied.
That is why access is proposed as a guided demo, a short test with representative material and, if it makes sense, a professional monthly access.
Quick questions
Short FAQ
Does IMC edit the PDF?
No. IMC uses the commented PDF as the review reference, but it does not work to visually retouch the final PDF. Its goal is to bring those decisions back into the editable source document.
Is it only for Word?
No. Word can be a destination, but IMC is especially interesting when the source is XML, DocBook, TEI, DITA, HTML, XHTML, IDML or another editable or structured document.
How much time do I save?
It depends on the size of the document, the number of comments, the source format and whether literal mode or AI is used. As a guideline, the automatic processing of a batch of 100–200 comments can be measured in minutes, not hours. A human review is still needed afterwards, but it no longer starts from scratch: IMC presents locations, proposals, states and uncertain cases so the user can review with more control.
What if the PDF and the source do not match exactly?
IMC can help locate and review, but the further apart the reviewed PDF and the source document are, the more cases may require human checking. The tool should not hide that uncertainty: it should point it out.
Does IMC replace the typesetter or proofreader?
No. IMC reduces mechanical work, helps locate comments, prepares proposals and separates risks, but the editorial decision remains human. The tool supports the craft; it does not replace it.
Does it work better with clean comments?
Yes. If the comment already contains clean final text, IMC can work more directly, faster and with more control, without needing to interpret the box so much. When the comment includes instructions, doubts or noise, AI can help, but the proposal remains reviewable.
Does it apply all comments automatically?
Not blindly. IMC prepares proposals, separates risks and allows review before applying. Some comments may remain not applicable, uncertain or pending manual intervention.
When is IMC not worth using?
If it is a one-off PDF with two simple changes, it may not be worth it. IMC makes more sense when there is volume, repetition, a separate source document, risk of applying in the wrong place or structured workflows that should be controlled.
Who is behind it
Editorial experience and document automation
Insert My Comments was created by Ernest Vidal based on years of work with layout, proofs, source documents, editorial review and process automation.