Problem with numbering subdocuments
Michel Touchot
I created a master document which contains 2 subdocuments (say A and B).
Each subdocument was created with its own titles numbering (from
styles), typically:
1.
1.1
2.
2.1
...etc
Now I must keep the original subdocument numbering in the master
document, so that the final numbering is as follows:
Subdocument A
1.
1.1
2.
2.1
Subdocument B
1.
1.1
2.
2.1
Well, using the Bullets and Numbering dialog, I can ask Subdocument B to
start numbering from 1, and this works. Unfortunately, this setting is
not "permanent" and quite often after a (saved) change, the numbering
reverts back to the "logical" one, i.e. :
Subdocument A
1.
1.1
2.
2.1
Subdocument B
3.
3.1
4.
4.1
How can I manage for the "numbering from 1" setting for subdocument B to
be permanent?
Thanks in advance for your help,
--Michel--
Jonathan West
Hi Michel,
The general advice on Master Documents is "don't use them". There are a
number of articles at www.mvps.org/word/ that explain why. In particular,
Matsre documents and Word's automatic numbering schemes ("spaghetti
numbering") rather disagree with each other.
--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
MultiLinker - Automated generation of hyperlinks in Word
Conversion to PDF & HTML
http://www.multilinker.com
Word FAQs at http://www.multilinker.com/wordfaq
Please post any follow-up in the newsgroup. I do not reply to Word questions
by email
"Michel Touchot" <michel....@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:2000082614...@integ-velizy-103-42.abo.wanadoo.fr...
Michel Touchot
> The general advice on Master Documents is "don't use them". There are a
> number of articles at www.mvps.org/word/ that explain why. In
> particular, Matsre documents and Word's automatic numbering schemes
> ("spaghetti numbering") rather disagree with each other.
Thank you for such advice, which I would be enclined to follow. However,
what would be the alternative to Master Documents in present case, where
I need to build a complete Table of Contents from several individual
documents.
Would "merging" individual files be safer? The merged document would be
a 300-page / 18Mb file, half the pages being scanned B&W images).
--Michel--
msh
>
> Jonathan West <10077...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > The general advice on Master Documents is "don't use them". There are a
> > number of articles at www.mvps.org/word/ that explain why. In
> > particular, Matsre documents and Word's automatic numbering schemes
> > ("spaghetti numbering") rather disagree with each other.
>
> Thank you for such advice, which I would be enclined to follow. However,
> what would be the alternative to Master Documents in present case, where
> I need to build a complete Table of Contents from several individual
> documents.
Create a new document and insert RD fields that point to the individual
documents. If we, for example have a folder structure that looks like
this (this might look funny with a proportional font):
document
|
+-chapter1
| |
| +-chapter1.doc
|
+-chapter2
| |
| +-chapter2.doc
|
+-chapter3
|
+-chapter3.doc
then we could create a new document in the "manual" folder. In this
document, we insert the following fields (press CTRL + F9 to insert a
new, empty field):
{ TOC [optional switches] }
{ RD ".\\chapter1\\chapter1.doc" }
{ RD ".\\chapter2\\chapter2.doc" }
{ RD ".\\chapter3\\chapter3.doc" }
Be sure to insert the RD fields in the order you want them to appear in
the table of contents. (Double backslashes are used in the file path
because Word normally uses the backslash for switches in fields.)
You can also use the same technique to generate an index from several
documents.
For more information, look up the syntax for RD, TOC, and INDEX fields
in the online help.
> Would "merging" individual files be safer? The merged document would be
> a 300-page / 18Mb file, half the pages being scanned B&W images).
Well, not safer, but it would make it easier to ensure correct page
numbering across chapters (if you do not use section numbering such as
X-X). It would also make it possible to have automatic cross-references
across chapters. There are ways of doing these things in a multiple-file
environment, but it is a bit tricky, and cannot really be recommended.
// Magnus
--
______________________________________________________
MAGNUS HENRIKSSON
Sigma Information Design AB, Telecom & Datacom
Phone: +46 706 24 11 25
Email: magnus.h...@id.sigma.se
------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson Microwave Systems AB, SML/M Product Marketing
Phone: +46 31 747 08 72
Email: magnus.h...@emw.ericsson.se
Michel Touchot
> Michel Touchot wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for such advice, which I would be enclined to follow. However,
> > what would be the alternative to Master Documents in present case, where
> > I need to build a complete Table of Contents from several individual
> > documents.
>
> Create a new document and insert RD fields that point to the individual
> documents. If we, for example have a folder structure that looks like
> this (this might look funny with a proportional font):
>
[snip]
OK, thank you, I will have a look to that. I am concerned however on how
to manage for the page numbering to follow automatically a continuous
sequence for all sub-documents.
> > Would "merging" individual files be safer? The merged document would be
> > a 300-page / 18Mb file, half the pages being scanned B&W images).
>
> Well, not safer, but it would make it easier to ensure correct page
> numbering across chapters (if you do not use section numbering such as
> X-X). It would also make it possible to have automatic cross-references
> across chapters. There are ways of doing these things in a multiple-file
> environment, but it is a bit tricky, and cannot really be recommended.
From my own (limited) experience and from what I heard from others,
creating a single from sub-documents looks anyway much safer and more
efficient than trying to use Master Documents! <g>
--Michel--
msh
>
> msh <qmw...@emw.ericsson.se> wrote:
>
> > Michel Touchot wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you for such advice, which I would be enclined to follow. However,
> > > what would be the alternative to Master Documents in present case, where
> > > I need to build a complete Table of Contents from several individual
> > > documents.
> >
> > Create a new document and insert RD fields that point to the individual
> > documents. If we, for example have a folder structure that looks like
> > this (this might look funny with a proportional font):
> >
> [snip]
>
> OK, thank you, I will have a look to that. I am concerned however on how
> to manage for the page numbering to follow automatically a continuous
> sequence for all sub-documents.
If you don't have to many sub-documents, the easiest way is simply to do
it by hand. Just format the page number to start at the next page
following the last page in the preceding sub-document.
On the other hand, if you really want automatic page numbering, do the
following:
1. Place a PAGE field, on the last page of every sub-document. You can
either place it in a separate paragraph after the last paragraph in
the document, or after the last character in the last paragraph.
I recommend the latter to avoid unexpected page breaks.
2. Bookmark the PAGE field and give the bookmark a name that makes
sense,
for example "LastPage".
3. Make the PAGE field hidden. We don't want the page number to show.
4. In the footer (or wherever you want the page numbers) of every
sub-document, insert the following field:
{ = { PAGE } + { INCLUDETEXT "[document]" LastPage
\* CharFormat \! } }
where [document] is the path and name of the preceding
sub-document. This will add the value of the bookmarked PAGE
field to the current documents page number.
> > > Would "merging" individual files be safer? The merged document would be
> > > a 300-page / 18Mb file, half the pages being scanned B&W images).
> >
> > Well, not safer, but it would make it easier to ensure correct page
> > numbering across chapters (if you do not use section numbering such as
> > X-X). It would also make it possible to have automatic cross-references
> > across chapters. There are ways of doing these things in a multiple-file
> > environment, but it is a bit tricky, and cannot really be recommended.
I think I will have to make a clarification here: what I meant was that
it is much easier to maintain consecutive page numbering in a
single-file document than in a multi-file document.
> From my own (limited) experience and from what I heard from others,
> creating a single from sub-documents looks anyway much safer and more
> efficient than trying to use Master Documents! <g>
The Master Document feature is to be avoided!
// Magnus
Charles Kenyon
The following is from the FAQ page on master documents:
http://www.addbalance.com/word/q10.htm
The Tech-Tav template is one such work-around.
Ron Mohr’s work-around is described in:
http://www.writemohr.com/Build-a-book.pdf
(part of a book: Elements of Word - http://www.writemohr.com/)
Hope this is of some help.
--
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Charles Kenyon (Balance Check) from the shores of that
inland sea known as Lake Michigan.
Word New User FAQ & Web Directory:
http://www.addbalance.com/word
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.
"Michel Touchot" <michel....@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:200008281...@integ-velizy-102-170.abo.wanadoo.fr...
> Jonathan West <10077...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> > The general advice on Master Documents is "don't use them". There are a
> > number of articles at www.mvps.org/word/ that explain why. In
> > particular, Matsre documents and Word's automatic numbering schemes
> > ("spaghetti numbering") rather disagree with each other.
>
> Thank you for such advice, which I would be enclined to follow. However,
> what would be the alternative to Master Documents in present case, where
> I need to build a complete Table of Contents from several individual
> documents.
>
> Would "merging" individual files be safer? The merged document would be
> a 300-page / 18Mb file, half the pages being scanned B&W images).
>
> --Michel--