LISTNUM field - different list names
Jon Pawley
I guess this post is directed towards John McGhie, as I discuss some issues
that John talks about in his (draft) "Word Numbering Explained" article from
the http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/Numbering/WordsNumberingExplained.htm
website.
John--I don't in any way expect you to follow up my points here--you have
your own work to be doing! <g>. If you do have some time, then it would be
good to hear your comments on this.
In the above article John talk about the field numbers that can be used to
generate numbers in documents (section "6.9 Field numbers"). The Word Help
says that you can define various list names in a LISTNUM field, much the
same way as you do with SEQ fields. John says this is not true.
I am confused. I believe that you *can* define various list names... to some
extent. Maybe what I have done happens to work by chance, and maybe I am
mixing things up.
Let me describe what I have done, using Word 97:
I started off with the Heading 1 through to Heading 9 styles. I modified
these to suit the formatting I required. Then, I went to Format | Styles.
Selected Heading 1, selected Modify | Format | Numbering. From the dialog
box I then chose one of the (Word hardcoded) default List Templates that
made reference to Heading styles. I customised this so that the numbering
indent would be suitable for the styles I had defined; I changed the ordinal
digit in some cases, and added text such as "Section" to other levels. I
assigned linked styles to the levels: Level 1 mapping to Heading 1, level 2
mapping to Heading 2, and so forth. Obviously, to link the styles to the
numbering levels, I'd have had to click on the "More" button to pop down
that part of the dialog box.
At the bottom of the Numbering dialog box, there is a field for labelled
"ListNum field list name." In here I gave a name "Heading".
I then created 9 styles, called Style1 through to Style9. I went to the
Format | Styles dialog, selected Style1, selected Modify | Format |
Numbering. I chose a List Template that made no reference to the Heading
styles. I modified the numbering so that it included the text "Style" in the
numbering (e.g.. this would produce "Style 1.1", "Style 1.2" etc.). I
assigned the 9 levels to the 9 StyleX styles. In the "ListNum field list
name" I specified "Style".
Back in the document. I created some headings, using the Heading X styles.
These headings were numbered, according to List Template I had defined,
which also had the "Heading" ListNum field list name. I created some body
text. This body text I wanted to number according to the following scheme
(note: I've indicated the automatic numbering with ^ delimiters, style names
with & delimiters, typed text with " delimiters):
^Section A: ^ &Heading 1& "First section"
^A1^ &Heading 2& "A section heading"
^A1.1^ &Heading 3& "A section sub-heading"
^A1.1.1^ &Body text& "Some body text, which needs to be
automatically numbered
^A1.1.2^ &Body text& "Some more body text, which needs to be
automatically numbered
^A2^ &Heading 2& "A section heading"
^A2.1^ &Body text& "Some body text, which needs to be
automatically numbered
^A2.2^ &Body text& "Some more body text, which needs to be
automatically numbered
I found that I could generate the automatic numbering, with the correct
format, by using the following:
{ LISTNUM Heading \l 3 } or { LISTNUM Heading \l 2 }
By specifying the "Heading" string in the LISTNUM field I could "pick up"
the numbering as defined in the List Template associated with that string.
Yes, I had to manually specify the level of heading, but that was OK.
Within the same document, I repeated the above headings and body text,
except that I used the StyleX styles. I inserted the { LISTNUM } fields, but
this time specified the "Style" string:
{ LISTNUM String \l 3 } or { LISTNUM String \l 2 }
In this case, the { LISTNUM } field "picked up" the numbering as defined in
the List Template associated with the string "Style." I know this, because
the { LISTNUM } fields with "Style" in them generated numbers which had the
string "Style" in them. (Remember, when customising the numbering scheme for
the StyleX styles, I included the text "Style" in with the ordinal
figures.)
My conclusion from all this experimentation is that yes, Word 97 *does*
allow you to define various list names in the { LISTNUM } field, as the Word
Help suggests.
So... Maybe I have made a mistake in the procedure above; maybe it is not
reproducible; maybe I have fudge the definitions of the List Templates, etc,
so that I have been very lucky. John--without wanting to say you are wrong
(you have obviously worked with Word for longer than I have, and have more
experience), this does seem to be contrary to your position. What do you
think?
Cheers,
Jon
John Nurick
I can't remember exactly what John McGhie wrote so I'm not going to
comment on that. My own imperfect understanding of this difficult area
suggests the following:
1) LISTNUM fields work reliably; the problems are in the underlying
mechanisms of lists and listtemplates and listgallery.
2) To have a chance of stable numbering, all the listtemplates you use
must have names. It's preferable to create and define listtemplates
from scratch using VBA code (even by typing the commands into the VBA
editor's Immediate window) than via the Bullets and Numbering dialog.
3) The implication of (2) is that if portability is a concern you
should seal off the standard Bullets and Numbering user interface so
that users can only select from the predefined numbering schemes you
have built into the templates.
Subject to these limitations, I find that LISTNUM fields work
perfectly *for extending the heading numbering scheme to paragraphs of
body text*. Given the problems of the underlying mechanism, however, I
still use SEQ fields (inserted and removed by macros) to produce
independent numbered lists within body text. (One day I'm going to
spend some more time investigating the use of LISTNUM for independent
numbered lists, but for now, IIABDFI!).
John
--
John
Please reply to the newsgroup and not by e-mail. That way, more
brain cells get to work on the problem!