Seq field formatting.
Thomas A. Burns Jr
Is it possible to use the #0.0 formatting switch to get a single SEQ
field to do legal style numbering? I would like to have one sequence for
no decimal places, a second for one place, a third for two places, etc.
If this is possible, what is the correct syntax in the field
construction. I have tried to do this by trial and error and it has been
a trial and replete with errors!
TIA
Tom Burns
Cindy Meister -WordMVP-
Normally, one uses a separate SEQ sequence for each *level* in a numbering
format that uses "decimal" places...
Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister
http://go.compuserve.com/MSWord
This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or
reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-)
Peter Jamieson
Burns Jr) wrote:
> I am working in Word 7.0.
>
> Is it possible to use the #0.0 formatting switch to get a single SEQ
> field to do legal style numbering? I would like to have one sequence for
> no decimal places, a second for one place, a third for two places, etc.
> If this is possible, what is the correct syntax in the field
> construction. I have tried to do this by trial and error and it has been
> a trial and replete with errors!
>
> TIA
>
> Tom Burns
>
1. As Cindy suggests, you can use something like:
{SEQ A}{SEQ B\r0\h}{SEQ C\r0\h}{SEQ D\r0\h}. for level 1 of a 4-level
sequence
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B}{SEQ C\r0\h}{SEQ D\r0\h} for level 2 of a 4-level
sequence
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B\c}.{SEQ C}{SEQ D\r0\h} for level 3 of a 4-level sequence
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B\c}.{SEQ C\c}.{SEQ D} for level 4 of a 4-level sequence
2. If you *never* have a level(n) item without a level(n-1) item then you
can reduce that to:
{SEQ A}{SEQ B\r0\h}. for level 1
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B}{SEQ C\r0\h} for level 2
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B\c}.{SEQ C}{SEQ D\r0\h} for level 3
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B\c}.{SEQ C\c}.{SEQ D} for level 4
3. You can use nesting to make it harder for the user to remove the \r
resets accidentally. (NB, I never used this approach myself so there may
be problems I'm not aware of):
{SEQ A {SEQ B\r0\h}}. for level 1
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B {SEQ C\r0\h}} for level 2
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B\c}.{SEQ C {SEQ D\r0\h}}for level 3
{SEQ A\c}.{SEQ B\c}.{SEQ C\c}.{SEQ D} for level 4
4. Given situation (2) and if all you ever want is *numeric* sequences
such as
1.
1.1
1.1.1 etc.
then you can do each number group using a single nested {SEQ} field, e.g.
{SEQ A\#"#'.'{SEQ B\r0\h}"} for level 1
{SEQ B\#"`A`'.'#{SEQ C\r0\h}" } for level 2
{SEQ C\#"`A`'.'`B`'.'#{SEQ D\r0\h}" } for level 3
{SEQ D\#"`A`'.'`B`'.'`C`'.'#"} for level 4
5. In case (4), the ' quotes (around the ".") have to be straight
single quotes, and the ` quotes (around the "A", "B" etc.) have to be
"grave" quotes. Again, I haven't used that technique much myself, but the
attraction is again that it's more difficult for the user to delete *part*
of the number if they are normally working with the field *results*
showing.
Peter Jamieson
John McGhie [MVP - Word]
Use the AUTONUMLGL field instead of the SEQ field. That's what it is for.
Cheers.
--
Please post follow-up questions to the newsgroup so that all may follow the
thread.
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie-information.com.au>
Consultant Technical Writer
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Sydney, Australia (GMT +10 hrs) +61 (04) 1209 1410
"Thomas A. Burns Jr" <thomas....@bayer.com> wrote in message
news:38230B...@bayer.com...
Thomas A. Burns Jr
reset it. I have documents in which I have to restert the numbering over
again in the appendix. I can use sucessive SEQ fields, seperarted by
periods, but that's awfully messy. So I was hoping that switch worked
with SEQ.
John McGhie [MVP - Word]
Damn! You're right, you can't. If you were in Word 97 or above, you could
use the LISTNUM field, which is a new field that can be reset.
However, since you are in Word 7, why not use the standard Heading
numbering? I've never had any trouble with it in Word 7.
Failing that, then yes you need to make a complex series of SEQ fields to do
legal numbering. I have done it in Word 97, and it works OK. Once you get
them built, you put them in an AutoText so you don't have to keep
re-creating them.
Sorry.
--
Please post follow-up questions to the newsgroup so that all may follow the
thread.
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie-information.com.au>
Consultant Technical Writer
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Sydney, Australia (GMT +10 hrs) +61 (04) 1209 1410
"Thomas A. Burns Jr" <thomas....@bayer.com> wrote in message
news:382C81...@bayer.com...
Thomas A. Burns Jr
1929 stock market crash!). I made a template with SEQ fields separated
by periods which works okay, but it's not terribly user-friendly -- you
have to be real careful removing numbers that you don't leave stray
fields hanging around.
I saw LISTNUM on the fields list, but didn't investigate it. Maybe I
will.