listnum
arshad slatch
paragraph or for numbering different paragraphs with
listnum, i cannot format the number typed or given by the
field listnum. listnum in my documents supply numbers in
following format: 1) or say arabic numeral followed by a
parenthesis what can i do to change its foemat so that
there appears no parenthesis after the numeral using
windows xp and word xp
Bruce Brown
{ LISTNUM LegalDefault } = 1., 1.1, etc.
{ LISTNUM OutlineDefault } = I., A., etc.
{ LISTNUM NumberDefault } = 1), a), etc.
Each LISTNUM field has nine levels of numbering, just like a list
template.
If you have named list templates, LISTNUM will duplicate the number
styles.
{ LISTNUM MyNamedListTemplate }
By using the "level switch" you can control which of the nine
numbering levels you want.
( LISTNUM MyNamedListTemplate \L 2 } = Section 1.01 or whatever it is
in the named list template.
By using the "start switch" you can control the start number value of
the field:
{ LISTNUM MyNamedListTemplate \L 2 \S 999 ) = Section 999.01
If you use nothing at all in the LISTNUM field it will continue
whatever numbering comes immediately before it.
Article the First
Article the Second
{ LISTNUM } = Article the Third
Alt-F9 lets you switch between viewing the contents and the results of
the field.
Hope this helps. - Bruce
=============================================================================
"arshad slatch" <slat...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<07ab01c2cde4$dc8868c0$d5f82ecf@TK2MSFTNGXA12>...
Suzanne S. Barnhill
insert a number without any punctuation following it.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://www.mvps.org/word
"Bruce Brown" <Empyrea...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d2f086c.03020...@posting.google.com...
Klaus Linke
> Unfortunately, none of these switches does what Arshad wants, which
> is to insert a number without any punctuation following it.
I guess that's why Bruce said you can define your own named list template
{ LISTNUM MyNamedListTemplate }
that inserts the number without punctuation.
:-) Klaus
Suzanne S. Barnhill
what's needed.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://www.mvps.org/word
"Klaus Linke" <fotosatz...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:uJLG8KmzCHA.1752@TK2MSFTNGP10...
Bruce Brown
Suzanne is right, as usual - I didn't read your post carefully enough.
Bottom line: You can ADD punctuation to a default LISTNUM field but
you can't DELETE it.
For example, if you wanted to convert a NumberDefault LISTNUM a) into
(a), you could put in a parens before the LISTNUM field, then select
the whole thing (with any tabs included) and turn it into an AutoText
entry, easily re-usable.
But you could NOT take an OutlineDefault LISTNUM A. and convert it to
(A) because you can't get rid of the period.
Klaus said:
> > I guess that's why Bruce said you can define your own named list template
> > { LISTNUM MyNamedListTemplate }
> > that inserts the number without punctuation.
Whew, thanks for getting me off the hook, Klaus But while we're on
the subject, I'd like to make a point about the relationship between
LISTNUM fields and list templates. Earlier I said, "Each LISTNUM
field has nine levels of numbering, just like a list template." I
should have eaid, "Each of the three default LISTNUM fields IS a list
template unto itself."
By specifying a LISTNUM default name and using the \L for level
switch, you can create entire outlines with nine layers of
interrelated numbering -- as if you were using Heading styles.
What you can't do, easily at least, is what you want to do -- change
their numbering styles.
Hate to tell you this, Ashad, but it sounds as if you should be
probably be using Word's built-in outline-numbered Heading 1-9 styles
for your job. Sorry about that. - Bruce
==============================================================================
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbar...@mvps.org> wrote in message news:<#csNpsrzCHA.1672@TK2MSFTNGP09>...
Bruce Brown
template unto itself," having forgotten the reality of the three
default LISTNUM fields. What should have been said is this:
It is a strange property of the LISTNUM field that the three default
names represent three sets of number styles, but only one set of
numbers. They are not three different list templates. They are one
list template with three numbering styles per level.
Therefore, when you specify both a default name and a level, the
LISTNUM field will increment numbering as if each belonged the same
list, as shown in these consecutive examples:
LEVEL 1
{ LISTNUM LegalDefault \L 1 ) = 1.
{ LISTNUM OutlineDefault \L 1 ) = II.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \L 1 ) = 3)
LEVEL 2
{ LISTNUM LegalDefault \L 2 ) =
1.1
{ LISTNUM OutlineDefault \L 2 ) =
B.
( LISTNUM NumberDefault \L 2 ) =
c)
If the next field in this series had no default name or level, it
would continue to increment the last active level in the last active
number style:
{ LISTNUM } = d)
By the way, if you try to name a list template LegalDefault,
OutlineDefault or NumberDefault. within the Customize Outline Numbered
List dialog, you get a message that the list name is already in use.
To enjoy a bizarre little spectacle in Word 2002, maybe in earlier
versions too, insert a LISTNUM field, put your cursor to the immediate
left of it and press keep pressing Shift-Alt-Right Arrow or
Shift-Alt-Left Arrow.
Cheers, Bruce.
=================================================================
Empyrea...@aol.com (Bruce Brown) wrote in message news:<1d2f086c.03020...@posting.google.com>...
Bruce Brown
{ LISTNUM } = d)
Klaus Linke
Like you, I thought that LegalDefault, OutlineDefault, and NumberDefault
were three built-in named list templates.
Don't know what the MS developers are smoking, but wish I had some of that
stuff...
8-) Klaus
Margaret Aldis
Brown <Empyrea...@aol.com> writes
>What you can't do, easily at least, is what you want to do -- change
>their numbering styles.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this is any more
complicated than changing the numbering style for a built-in heading.
It's simply a matter of defining a custom name for the custom List
Template, and not linking levels to styles. You can do this in the B&N
Customize dialog using the 'ListNum field list name' box (which does in
fact define the List Template name), although I would usually use VBA to
define List Templates myself.
As someone who has always worked exclusively with styles (and been a
participant in the long fight for control of linking styles and
numbering schemes!) I think I've missed a trick in the past by not
looking more closely at LISTNUM fields. It's a different paradigm, but
might suit legal documents better where numbering often seems to be
independent of paragraph types. Having an explicit field (and one that
updates automatically!) can make it clearer what is going on - and it
offers a way of restarting lists without applying direct formatting on
the paragraph or using hidden styles.
--
Margaret Aldis, Syntagma, e-mail Margare...@syntagma.co.uk
"Civilisation advances by extending the number of important
operations which we can perform without thinking about them.
Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in battle - they are
strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must
only be made at decisive moments." A N Whitehead
Klaus Linke
> >their numbering styles.
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this is any more
> complicated than changing the numbering style for a built-in heading.
It seemed to me that Bruce was referring to LegalDefault, OutlineDefault,
and NumberDefault, and not to user-defined list templates.
I don't use numbering much, but it seems you can even mix listnum fields
and styles (using the same named list template) without a hitch.
Regards,
Klaus
Bruce Brown
NumberDefault LISTNUM numbering styles. You can add punctuation to
them but you can't delete it from them.
My experience, and apparently Klaus's, is that the LISTNUM field
doesn't seem to care whether styles are linked (or not linked) to the
named list template, nor do the linked styles seem to care whether the
LISTNUM field is being used.
The only thing they have in common is their capacity to do outline
numbering interchangeably.
Margaret, you say:
"As someone who has always worked exclusively with styles (and been a
participant in the long fight for control of linking styles and
numbering schemes!) I think I've missed a trick in the past by not
looking more closely at LISTNUM fields. It's a different paradigm, but
might suit legal documents better where numbering often seems to be
independent of paragraph types. Having an explicit field (and one that
updates automatically!) can make it clearer what is going on - and it
offers a way of restarting lists without applying direct formatting on
the paragraph or using hidden styles."
Would you be good enough to explain what you mean by restarting lists
by applying direct formatting on the paragraph? Forgive my ignorance,
I'm just not sure what you mean here.
Also, because you are justly famous as the inventor of the dummy
style, a lot of people who follow these threads will probably be
wondering if there's been a sea change in your thinking about
re-starting list numbering. - Bruce
===============================================================================
"Klaus Linke" <fotosatz...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<uNSkxeR0CHA.1840@TK2MSFTNGP12>...
Margaret Aldis
Apologies for misreading. Your posts have confirmed that the *default*
LISTNUMs are not very nice and I was right not to get involved with them
;-)
My (limited) experience with named ListTemplates used in LISTNUM fields
as well as linked to styles is the same - Word has kindly provided two
quite independent ways of using ListTemplates!
My reference to direct formatting was just recalling that if you restart
lists in the 'obvious' way from the B&N dialog or context menu the
numbering seems to fall into the category of 'direct paragraph
formatting' (In Word 97/2000, Shift F1 shows this clearly). In
particular, if you 'reset paragraph formatting' to style you return to
the 'clean' ListTemplate association and lose your restart.
Since I expect to use and reapply styles rigorously, it was this that
goaded me to invent the dummy style method for restarting ad-hoc
numbered lists such as instruction steps. I still use that method,
supported by some macros to put the dummy styled paragraph in and remove
it when necessary, and I have had it working solidly and successfully in
multiple corporate templates. However, I understand John McGhie's
concerns that arcane macros and white fonts may be hazards some would
prefer to do without! Many people have advocated returning to SEQ fields
instead of using Word's autonumbering at all, so it seems to me that if
you are considering using a field then LISTNUM is at least worth looking
at as an alternative.
My other reasons for thinking that there are times to consider LISTNUM
rather than style linking are:
* Situations where the numbering is independent of the style. In legal
documents, for instance, I believe it's common to number every paragraph
hierarchically from its preceding heading, making it impossible to use
linked styles sensibly.
* Word does spend a lot of time trying to 'square the circle' with style
linking. For instance, on pasting between documents I've found it
reapplying a ListTemplate as direct formatting even though it is linked
to the style in both docs! I'm not using Word 2002 at the moment, but
when I was I thought I was seeing even more paddling under the surface
going on there, which made me uneasy. For the terminally paranoiac,
using a field where ListTemplate name, level and any restart value are
visible and immutable (one assumes) does have some attractions ;-)
So - no sea change, but a feeling that there's more than one way to skin
a cat and maybe I'll explore this some more in future templates - maybe
the combination of fields and named ListTemplates is cleaner and more
consistent for some applications.
Margaret
In article <1d2f086c.03021...@posting.google.com>, Bruce
Brown <Empyrea...@aol.com> writes
--
Bruce Brown
Thank you for clarifying the 'direct formatting', Margaret. I kind of
thought that's what you meant but couldn't be 100% sure. You might
just have discovered secrets known only to the high priests of the
Great Pyramid.
Begging your indulgence again, may I ask you to clarify this sentence
from your last post?
". . . In legal documents, for instance, I believe it's common to
number every paragraph hierarchically from its preceding heading,
making it impossible to use linked styles sensibly."
That sounds just right -- elegant too -- and I read it over again and
again. But for the life of me I can't figure out what it means.
Maybe you'd be good enough to sketch a small outline?
If linked styles can't be used sensibly with legal documents, millions
of legal documents are going to bed tonight with unsensible numbering.
Styled paragraph numbering is generally preferred at law firms, the
large ones at least. Since you brought up legal documents, I'd like
to note two chronic legal formatting problems that LISTNUM solves
beautifully.
SOMETIMES SUBHEADINGS, SOMETIMES NOT
One invaluable benefit of the LISTNUM field is where you have a level
-- say, level 2 -- which SOMETIMES has subheadings and sometimes
DOESN'T. This stylistic error abounds in law:
Section 1.01 Erratic Subheadings. This paragraph has a
subheading followed by this text.
Section 1.02 This paragraph has no subheading, just this
text.
Since the subheading is typically underlined, the Heading 2 font will
have to be single underline. But on paragraphs without a subheading,
the text must have no underlining.
LISTNUM to the rescue. LISTNUM will increment the number but won't
mark the text for the Table of Contents, nor will it apply
underlining. So alternating between the Heading 2 styles and LISTNUM
fields, the numbering will come out perfectly, the underlining will
come out perfectly, and the TOC will pick up only those level 2
paragraphs with subheadings. In other words, just what you want.
MORE THAN ONE PARAGRAPH NUMBER ON THE SAME LINE
Another great LISTNUM benefit in legal documents is when you have
multiple paragraph numbers on the same line:
Section 1.01 Erratic Subheadings. (a) Seller agrees not to
apply subheadings to any level higher than three.
The (a) in the first line could theoretically be a Heading 3 style if
it were preceded by several hidden paragraph marks. But that's a
pain. LISTNUM does it straightforwardly; just put it in.
(However, if there's a subheading after level 3, then you're going to
want to go through the trouble of putting in the hidden paragraph
marks so the subheading can be captured for the TOC.)
DOWNSIDE OF THE LISTNUM FIELD
Being a mere field, LISTNUM can't have font formatting or indentation
of its own, nor can it mark text for the Table of Contents. You'll
wind up adding those by hand.
But when it comes to re-starting numbering at any value you want from
0 to 9,999, at any level you want from 1 to 9, it's hard to beat the
named LISTNUM field. Simply change the number in the \S switch and
watch how the styled paragraph numbers that follow it snap into line
instantly. What better proof that LISTNUM and the styles share the
same named list template?
Margaret and Klaus, a pleasure as always. - Bruce
===================================================================
Margaret Aldis <margare...@syntagma.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3r8jbDAK...@syntagma.demon.co.uk>...
Margaret Aldis
>from your last post?
>
>". . . In legal documents, for instance, I believe it's common to
>number every paragraph hierarchically from its preceding heading,
>making it impossible to use linked styles sensibly."
>
>That sounds just right -- elegant too -- and I read it over again and
>again. But for the life of me I can't figure out what it means.
>Maybe you'd be good enough to sketch a small outline?
>
>If linked styles can't be used sensibly with legal documents, millions
>of legal documents are going to bed tonight with unsensible numbering.
> Styled paragraph numbering is generally preferred at law firms, the
>large ones at least. Since you brought up legal documents, I'd like
>to note two chronic legal formatting problems that LISTNUM solves
>beautifully.
The scenarios I was thinking of where style linking doesn't give a neat
solution and LISTNUM does are basically those you describe very clearly
below. The particular instance I was thinking of is where every
paragraph in, say, article 3 needs to be numbered 3.1, 3.2 etc., but the
paragraphs themselves may be of different styles (need to be variously
indented/nonindented/centred etc.) - I think what usually happens is
that a single paragraph style is used to get the numbering, and then all
the other paragraph formatting gets adjusted by direct formatting. This
may be fine in the circumstances - I'm no legal document expert - but
IMHO it isn't using styles 'sensibly' - 'rigorously' might have been a
better word. Hope I don't incur wrath or writs from any lawyers
listening ;-) (The alternative, discussed recently, is to derive several
styles from a numbered one - but I don't think any of us felt very
comfortable with that!)
You also say:
>Being a mere field, LISTNUM can't have font formatting or indentation
>of its own, nor can it mark text for the Table of Contents. You'll
>wind up adding those by hand.
This is true, but you can still use the (unnumbered) paragraph style to
define the paragraph formatting and TOC inclusion (the number will
appear with other heading text), and character styles to format the
field result itself.
Definitely worth remembering this little widget is there in the toolbox
amongst the swarf, it seems :-)
Happy numbering
Margaret
>Margaret Aldis <margare...@syntagma.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3r8jbDAKlW
>S+I...@syntagma.demon.co.uk>...
Ela Almekinder
I believe that millions of legal documents do go to bed each night with
crazy numbering because of tight time schedules, client access to documents,
and attorney reticence to change what the client has added.
Can anyone point me to an article or information that allows document to
combine numbering styles and listnum together in the same document.
I am encountering documents that are as follows:
1. Lorem Ipsum.
1.1 Nullam pellentesque placerat enim. Sed eu nunc: a) Etiam
wisi justo, malesuada a, volutpat vel, suscipit eget, tortor. Vivamus
tincidunt blandit massa. Curabitur urna dui, sollicitudin et, luctus ac,
adipiscing sit amet, lectus.
b) Nulla eget mauris eget orci dapibus consequat. Sed sit
amet orci at wisi condimentum ullamcorper. Phasellus non orci. Donec pretium
tellus ut diam. Cras bibendum nibh sit amet urna.
"Margaret Aldis" <margare...@syntagma.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Fqc$bLAIV3...@syntagma.demon.co.uk...
Suzanne S. Barnhill
headings, but it appears that possibly what you have is a Level 1, a Level 2
that includes the Level 1 number and restarts after each Level 1 and a Level
3 that does not include any portion of the previous levels or restart after
Level 2. This should be possible using ordinary outline numbering. See
http://www.shaunakelly.com/word/numbering/OutlineNumbering.html
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://www.mvps.org/word
"Ela Almekinder" <ele...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:#pltJa3#CHA....@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Margaret Aldis
fields and styles linked to the same list templates, and basically I now
think the answer is 'don't' - this is opening up what still seems to be
a very buggy area. However, I'll attempt to report my findings in
detail, in the hope that Bruce, Klaus or one of the other LISTNUM users
may be able to add to it.
The first problem with mixing LISTNUM and paragraph numbering is that
there is a bug - which it seems was reported by Leigh Webber over 6
months ago - which will reliably crash Word if you select a LISTNUM
field and then access the B&N dialog in a document in which there is any
paragraph numbering whatsoever. For more details, see
http://www.knowhow.com/ListNumBug.htm or google for kaboom and listnum.
The 'workaround' is obviously not to do it, but since after the crash
Word attempts list repairs in open documents and templates, I would be
concerned that it might indicate some underlying incompatibilities
between the two uses of list templates.
Ignoring the bug, the first results of my experimentation looked
promising. I started with a template in which I had named List Templates
attached to styles, set up using VBA. This method has proved very
reliable over a long period, in Word 97, 2000 and 2002. I then tried
inserting LISTNUM fields using existing list template names - these are
offered as field options. As expected, the field behaved like a number
on the equivalent level numbered paragraph. So far so good - this allows
you to use the same numbering sequence by applying a style or by
inserting a LISTNUM field, or to mix, say, heading levels with lower
level 'in-text' numbers as part of the same multi-level list. It also
provides an explicit way of restarting list numbering, for any level and
at any value, as suggested in the past by Klaus Linke and Bruce Brown,
IIRC.
I then looked at what happens when you update the styles from template.
If you update styles using the Tools>Templates and Add-ins dialog, there
is an alternation where on the first update the list template names are
removed, on the next they are re-instated, and so on. Losing the list
template names doesn't seem to affect the styles, but when the names are
removed the LISTNUM field loses its reference and reverts to a default
format - losing its relationship to the style numbering. A simple macro
to do the update twice and thus preserve the names appears to work
consistently when run from the VBA editor, but when run from a global
add-in will only do the job if it also includes Dave Rado's code
(http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/MacrosVBA/UpdateStyles.htm)
Conversely, if you set up a named list template referenced in a LISTNUM
field first, and then try to update with styles which reference the same
list template name, Word hangs on to the name for the LISTNUM template,
and *never* includes the name when it imports the (otherwise correct)
style formatting.
The rules the update seems to be applying are:
* If the list template name is already in use in the document, don't use
the name from the attached template.
* If the name is in use for a list template that is attached to styles
being imported, then delete the name altogether.
List template counts are not affected by this. So as far as I can see
the 'name' is not a fixed identifier of a particular list template, but
rather a label that can be applied, reapplied or removed. There is
nothing to stop you, for instance, using the B&N Customize dialog to add
the name already used for a LISTNUM field to the list template attached
to the style, and this creates the link with the LISTNUM field so that
the field takes its numbering from the style-linked list template,
rather than whatever list template previously had that name.
Other points of possible interest and/or confusion are:
* Specifying a name in a LISTNUM field does not immediately make the
name visible in the document, but visiting the B&N customize dialog
shows it greyed, and on leaving the dialog (even via Cancel) it then
becomes visible. This applies to cutting and pasting LISTNUM fields too
- they don't immediately appear to bring the name of their list template
with them, unlike styles linked to a named list template.
* Somehow in one document (probably after accepting Word 'repairs') I
got a zombie list template name. The name was visible in the LISTNUM
field options, but it was not found via an iteration of the document
list templates! The worst effect of this was that it prevented my normal
VBA list template - style linking code from running, since that relies
on testing for existence of a name, only creating a new list template
with that name if it is not found. The existence test wrongly reported
that the name didn't exist, which threw an error on the attempted 'Add'
saying the list template name was already in use.
All in all, I would take this evidence to indicate that the numbering
model does not deal with shared list template names consistently, and
may even include code deliberately intended to prevent or remove
'conflicts'.
I think it would be possible to design around this for a particular set
of templates in a controlled environment (by which I mean both macro
customization and user training), and at the other end of the spectrum a
single document author could 'get away with' using mixed LISTNUM and
paragraph numbering to get the effects they were looking for. But for
ad-hoc editing of documents which may be passed between different
authors and offices I would think it was safer to stick with unnamed
LISTNUM fields and rely on their position to pick up the appropriate
paragraph numbering sequence.
Apologies for this very long post, but having suggested a while back
that
>> >>- maybe
>> >> the combination of fields and named ListTemplates is cleaner and more
>> >> consistent for some applications.
I thought I'd better report back that maybe it isn't!
Margaret
In article <#pltJa3#CHA....@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Ela Almekinder
<ele...@frontiernet.net> writes
Bruce Brown
Thank you for your formidable research effort.
Frankly I hadn't anticipated the conditions you depict. With
outline-numbered styles being updated between template and document;
list templates being named, unnamed and re-named; and linked styles
being unlinked from and re-linked to list templates -- all of this
with apparent frequency -- a named LISTNUM field could probably never
be 100% safe. But how could numbered styles be safe either?
My experiments have been considerably less extensive and involve
mostly unchanging, stable named list templates. The results I get are
pretty much what you report in your post: "As expected, the field
behaved like a number on the equivalent level numbered paragraph. So
far so good - this allows you to use the same numbering sequence by
it applying a style or by inserting a LISTNUM field, or to mix, say,
heading levels with lower level 'in-text' numbers as part of the same
multi-level list. It also provides an explicit way of restarting list
numbering, for any level and at any value . . . "
I'm embarrassed to say I don't understand this statement from your
post:
> * Specifying a name in a LISTNUM field does not immediately make the
> name visible in the document, but visiting the B&N customize dialog
> shows it greyed, and on leaving the dialog (even via Cancel) it then
> becomes visible. This applies to cutting and pasting LISTNUM fields too
> - they don't immediately appear to bring the name of their list template
> with them, unlike styles linked to a named list template.
Doesn't a field display either its result or its contents, one or
t'other? What am I overlooking here? Something glaringly obvious,
I'm sure.
My own experience with copying and pasting named LISTNUM fields is
that you get exactly what you copied, including the name, whether the
list template exists in the target document or not. Where the list
name doesn't exist, LISTNUM reverts to its NumberDefault style without
giving an error message.
Perhaps others have had experiences like yours with LISTNUM and will
post them here for our benefit. Thank you again for taking the
trouble to investigate.
- Bruce
=============================================================================
Margaret Aldis <margare...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<S8keMlTw...@syntagma.demon.co.uk>...
Margaret Aldis
Thanks for this - was hoping you'd follow up from your real-life
experiences with LISTNUM.
In article <1d2f086c.03041...@posting.google.com>, Bruce
Brown <Empyrea...@aol.com> writes
>Margaret -
>
>Thank you for your formidable research effort.
Well, we all have different ways to get our kicks <g>
>
>Frankly I hadn't anticipated the conditions you depict. With
>outline-numbered styles being updated between template and document;
>list templates being named, unnamed and re-named; and linked styles
>being unlinked from and re-linked to list templates -- all of this
>with apparent frequency -- a named LISTNUM field could probably never
>be 100% safe. But how could numbered styles be safe either?
I'm not sure all the experimental conditions relate to anything
realistic, but key to my 'approach' to document processing is the
ability to update styles from template. I use the VBA method of setting
up numbered list styles, and this does seem to produce a firm linking
which survives the update from template - even in the simple case where
the List Template names themselves are not imported. This has worked
over several Word releases (97 SR1 to 2002 SR2) and a large number of
users, and so I think really is safe for numbered styles. But if I
introduce named LISTNUM fields, I would then have to be absolutely sure
that the LT names import with the styles - Dave Rado's code seems to do
that, but since the actual behaviour might be subject to a developer's
whim, and there are certainly ways you can break the link between style
and LISTNUM if you try, I wouldn't feel confident about that at the
moment.
I wouldn't normally change LT names, but as far as I can see my current
method is safe with that too. I often run the list set up macros many
times while developing templates (trying different tweaks of indent and
tab settings, for instance) and have occasionally had a major change of
plan in deciding which styles will share which outline numbering scheme.
I haven't broken anything yet <g>.
What is interesting from the point of view of the underlying model
(something Klaus and John Nurick put a lot of effort into investigating)
is that the name doesn't seem to be an 'identifier' for the LT, more a
movable label that can be attached to different LTs at different times.
I guess this is why the documentation says you can't use the name as an
index on the ListTemplates collection (though in fact you can for
ActiveDocument.ListTemplates).
>My experiments have been considerably less extensive and involve
>mostly unchanging, stable named list templates. The results I get are
>pretty much what you report in your post: "As expected, the field
>behaved like a number on the equivalent level numbered paragraph. So
>far so good - this allows you to use the same numbering sequence by
>it applying a style or by inserting a LISTNUM field, or to mix, say,
>heading levels with lower level 'in-text' numbers as part of the same
>multi-level list. It also provides an explicit way of restarting list
>numbering, for any level and at any value . . . "
It was your postings on this that made me want to investigate further -
I think you've broken some really useful new ground here. And if you
never have to do the update styles from template or cut and paste
between documents with different styles/List Templates I don't think
there are any problems. I'd certainly be happy to use your methods to
get fine control in a manual or book I was editing myself. My
experiments were aimed at seeing whether I could get those benefits in a
'corporate' situation where you can't be sure what other users will do
(and can be sure if there's a way to break it, someone will!).
>I'm embarrassed to say I don't understand this statement from your
>post:
>
>> * Specifying a name in a LISTNUM field does not immediately make the
>> name visible in the document, but visiting the B&N customize dialog
>> shows it greyed, and on leaving the dialog (even via Cancel) it then
>> becomes visible. This applies to cutting and pasting LISTNUM fields too
>> - they don't immediately appear to bring the name of their list template
>> with them, unlike styles linked to a named list template.
>
>Doesn't a field display either its result or its contents, one or
>t'other? What am I overlooking here? Something glaringly obvious,
>I'm sure.
>
>My own experience with copying and pasting named LISTNUM fields is
>that you get exactly what you copied, including the name, whether the
>list template exists in the target document or not. Where the list
>name doesn't exist, LISTNUM reverts to its NumberDefault style without
>giving an error message.
As a professional technical author, the embarrassment must surely be
mine <g>. To unpick what I was trying to say:
You are absolutely right about the cut and paste, and this was the
second of the two (one too many!) points I was making in this paragraph.
As you say, when you paste in the LISTNUM field, you get the field,
nothing added, nothing taken away. I was contrasting this to pasting in
a paragraph numbered using its style. In the situation where that
numbered style doesn't already exist, the style and its linked list
template (with its name, if not already in use) will come in too. The
results of pasting text from a document that includes a mixture of
styles and LISTNUM fields sharing names could therefore be quite
difficult to predict.
The other point was that if you enter a LISTNUM field with a name, that
of itself does not create a list template - if go to insert another
LISTNUM, you won't see that name offered, for instance. This is what I
meant by 'visible in the document'. (While testing this, I was running a
macro to count list templates and display list template names, and this
confirmed what you see in the Insert > Field LISTNUM offerings.)
However, if you select the field and visit the B&N dialog (assuming you
can get there without firing the bug, of course!) the name does show up
in the Customize dialog, and after that visit it will also show up in
the Insert > Field list.
>Perhaps others have had experiences like yours with LISTNUM and will
>post them here for our benefit. Thank you again for taking the
>trouble to investigate.
>
And thanks to you too for all your information and clarifications.
Margaret
Bruce Brown
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, and thank you for your
many clarifications, especially about trying to name a list template
from the LISTNUM field. That's one I hadn't thought to try.
What drives my research efforts is not any desperate need for the
field itself but rather to probe LISTNUM's 'underlying model', as
investigated by John Nurick and Klaus, but examined from a different
perspective. I apologize for the theoretical orientation.
LISTNUM is limited to whatever numbering is found in the List Template
Gallery. Even its own three default styles are drawn from the List
Template Gallery. Much confusion might have been avoided if they'd
only named it the "ListTemplateNum" field.
The numbering style for a LISTNUM field can't be changed within the
field by instructions such as *Arabic or *UpperRoman because LISTNUM
reflects only what already exists in the List Template Gallery,
nothing more, and has no business either creating numbering styles or
list template names on its own.
When you say "However, if you select the field and visit the B&N
dialog (assuming you can get there without firing the bug, of course!)
the name does show up in the Customize dialog, and after that visit
it will also show up in the Insert > Field list," I would have to
respond by saying, "It was not meant to work like that, the proof
being that it causes you to crash in the process, and furthermore that
you are unable to link the newly named list template with any
numbering styles."
I would hazard this guess: that the bug causing Word to crash when
LISTNUM is selected and Format > Bullets and Numbering is clicked may
have something to do with forcing LISTNUM to deal with more than one
list template at a time. LISTNUM is by nature limited to producing
but one number from one level from one list template at a time. It
resists having its job description expanded.
CONTINUE LAST? OR CHANGE LAST?
LISTNUM's job in a nutshell is either to CONTINUE list template
numbering from the previous paragraph or CHANGE the list template
and/or the level and/or the number value according to your
instructions.
Whatever you don't change stays the same. Whatever you change
changes.
Here a blank LISTNUM continues the previous number's list and level,
and increments the number value, as if you had put in the same style:
Heading 2 = Section 1.01
{ LISTNUM } = Section 1.02
Heading 2 = Section 1.03
Here LISTNUM fields change the previous number settings by means of
the level switch \L and the numbering switch \S.
Heading 1 = ARTICLE I
Heading 2 = Section 1.01
{ LISTNUM \L 1 \S 999} = ARTICLE CMXCIX
Heading 2 = Section 999.01
{ LISTNUM } = Section 999.02
Heading 2 = Section 999.03
{ LISTNUM \S 99 } = Section 999.99
Heading 2 = Section 999.100
* The first LISTNUM continues the list from which Headings 1 and 2
come but changes the level to back to 1 and its number value to 999.
* The second LISTNUM simply continues and increments the last used
number, Heading 2.
* The third LISTNUM continues the list and level but changes the level
2 number to 99.
* You cannot change the numbering style through instructions in the
LISTNUM field; you must do so by editing the level 1 heading style:
Modify > Format > Numbering > Customize > More
This brings us to the objection you expressed in your post about
pasting in numbering: "In the situation where that numbered style
doesn't already exist, the style and its linked list template (with
its name, if not already in use) will come in too. The results of
pasting text from a document that includes a mixture of styles and
LISTNUM fields sharing names could therefore be quite difficult to
predict."
Not if you depend on the position of the LISTNUM field instead of
specifying the list template name. Whatever the style you're pasting
in, LISTNUM will re-create it interchangeably by virtue of its being
located in the previous paragraph. As we see in the example above, as
long as ANY of the numbered styles precedes the LISTNUM field, we can
specify the level and start number of the next number with the \L and
\S switches and predict the result with confidence.
Truth is, the numbered style doesn't have to be in the paragraph
immediately above the field. The style could appear 20 paragraphs
before the LISTNUM field appears, as long as no other list template is
referenced between them.
There are only two conditions I can think of at the moment where an
unnamed LISTNUM field would not yield the desired result: (i) when it
immediately follows a single-level list within an outline-numbered
list, such as a bunch of bulleted paragraphs; and (ii) when more than
one named list template is used in the same document.
In (i) above, the field would pick up and reproduce the previous
paragraph's list template, namely, the bullets. The only way to avoid
that would be to use either a numbering style immediately after the
bullets or a named LISTNUM field referring to a valid named list
template.
LISTNUM FIELDS ARE FAIL-SAFE
Can't remember if we discussed this interesting feature of LISTNUM,
but you cannot sabotage a LISTNUM field with wrong instructions and
switches. Even when you include symbols, tabs, and quotes within
LISTNUM, it ignores them and reverts to its own NumberDefault style.
In other words, when all else fails you'll get a 1),2),3) -- but never
an error message.
If you asked me to make a simple case for re-starting numbering with
LISTNUM instead of Word's "Restart/Continue previous" method, it would
be:
NO EXTRA LISTS + PERMANENT RE-START VALUES + START AT ANY NUMBER =
SUPERIOR RE-STARTING
* No unwanted, unasked-for list templates are spawned when you use the
LISTNUM field for re-starting;
* The re-start values you specify are permanent and can be pasted
elsewhere ad infinitum; and
* You are not limited to re-starting at number 1, but can choose any
number you like.
The dummy style you invented avoids the first two problems; however,
like any re-start method, it is not entirely without trade-offs.
There are many, many other aspects I would like to cover here but
space forbids.
In spite of the theoretical emphasis I hope you'll find something
useful for your purposes.
- Bruce P.S. I see you've been busy posting messages over the
weekend, which means I must get busy reading them. Noblesse oblige --
your noblesse, not mine!
=======================================================================
Margaret Aldis <margare...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<40FUeJN$oSn+...@syntagma.demon.co.uk>...
Bob S
wrote:
>LISTNUM is limited to whatever numbering is found in the List Template
>Gallery.
> etc.
It seems to be perfectly possible to customize LISTNUM the same way as
the ordinary numbers are customized. I have seen no evidence that this
causes crashes.
If you don't like the predefined possibilities, Klaus Linke points out
that you can create your own. Following is an example for creating a
named list template that will provide small Roman numbering at level
one.
Use CTRL+F9 to create some magic field brackets, and type in a ListNum
field with any new name you like:
{ LISTNUM "Small Roman" }
Select the field, and go to Format | Bullets and Numbering. A list
template from the gallery will already be selected, just click
Customize. List level 1 should be selected; modify the number style to
small Roman i.e. "i, ii, iii, ..." (and modify any other levels that
you wish) and OK out of the dialog. From now on the "Small Roman" list
template will be present on the list of templates when you insert a
LISTNUM field using Insert | Field.
This list template will not be carried along if you copy and paste a
line containing such a field into a document that doesn't have the
list template, so if you want to use these things you should probably
add them to your document templates.
If you wanted to carry the template along, you could probably do it by
applying some ordinary automatic numbering to a paragraph using that
list template, and copying that paragraph across.
The ability to create your own format definitions could be useful. One
example would be if you happened to need numbering without any
following parentheses or periods. Another example would be if you
needed something like the legal numbering scheme but with letters
instead of numbers.
Another advantage of creating your own format definition is that it
does not share the same sequence as the predefined formats! Each
sequence that you create has its own set of nine sequence numbers.
Thus you can have any number of intertwined sequences of numbers, if
you think that the reader can keep it straight!
Bob S
Bruce Brown
Followed your instructions exactly but, as Leigh Webber pointed out
about six months ago, when you select the LISTNUM field and click
Format > Bullets and Numbering, it causes Word to crash. It did then
and sure enough it did just now too.
I'm willing to try any further suggestions you may have, but that one
was pre-doomed.
I confess that I've been unable all along to do what you and others
suggest is possible -- to create list templates directly from the
LISTNUM field and format the numbering within the field too. That
could well be a lack of imagination or expertise on my part, but it's
certainly not from any lack of trying.
The more I try and fail at this endeavor, the more I come back
reluctantly to my original conclusion, which is that LISTNUM fields
cannot be used to create list template names, numbering styles,
indentations or style linkage. Those jobs seem to be reserved
exclusively for the Customize Outline Numbered List dialog.
LISTNUM seems to have been intended to come into play *after* the list
template is set up with linked styles and doesn't want be part of the
set-up itself.
I also find myself unable to change the appearance of the numbering
style within the LISTNUM field itself by such switches as \*Arabic or
\*roman. To modify the numbering style I have to return to the
Customize Outline Numbered List dialog. All of this would seem to
suggest that the display side of LISTNUM is simply a mirror held to
the style definitions within the list template, and that LISTNUM has
no power of its own to change that numbering style. Where it does have
power -- unbelievable power -- is in the re-starting of list
numbering.
But there's another issue you didn't bring up. Let's say you *could*
have a customized LISTNUM field of the kind you describe. How would
you indent it? How would you bold, italicize or underline the
paragraph number -- or the text that follows it? How would you mark
the title to the Table of Contents with no extra work on the user's
part? How would you apply it to a bunch of selected paragraphs? Even
by making an AutoText entry out of your customized LISTNUM field, you
could not satisfy all the requirements above.
Only numbering styles can do all those things automatically. Don't
leave home without them.
Bob, I remain open to all suggestions, as long as they don't start
with "Select LISTNUM field and click Format > Bullets and Numbering .
. . " - Bruce
=======================================================================
Bob S <notarea...@110.net> wrote in message news:<esqvavoe623k2ppos...@4ax.com>...
Margaret Aldis
Just a quick follow up on Bruce's dilemma
It seems to me that the B&N dialog functionality is designed to support
LISTNUM fields in two ways:
First way - preplanned set up of numbering scheme: Use Format > B&N to
set up the outline numbering scheme, and give it a name in the 'LISTNUM
field list name". Then insert the LISTNUM field. Your name will now be
offered in the field option dialog. Choosing the name determines the
format used by the LISTNUM field.
Second way - later changes to numbering scheme: Select a LISTNUM field
whose number format you want to change, then Bullets and Numbering (it
is even offered on the context menu, so this must surely be intended
use?). B&N dialog opens, with your current scheme (which may be one of
the defaults) selected in one of the panes. From here you can customize
the scheme. If the selected LISTNUM field contains a name, then that
name will appear in the LISTNUM field list name (greyed out, since it
would not make any sense to change it here to something that didn't
match the selected field) .
The second way works fine if you do not have any numbered styles in your
document, but it crashes if you do. The workaround, provided your
LISTNUM field is named, seems to be to go into B&N without the field
selected, set up a new or changed numbering scheme using any of the
panes, and give it the name you have already used.
Note that the named list templates referenced by LISTNUM do not need to
be linked to styles, and indeed this introduces other problems (as
discussed at length in my post earlier in the thread). Bruce's method of
'mixing and matching' - which is to use an unnamed LISTNUM to pick up a
style-based scheme by its position, seems to be the only safe approach,
unless you take a lot of care to ensure the name stays with the correct
list template.
Building a new hypothesis <g>, I now think list template names are
'designed' to support separate LISTNUM numbering schemes, and not to
enable styles and fields to share a named scheme, attractive though this
seemed. Naming list templates is useful as part of the VBA set up
process for numbered styles but otherwise doesn't seem to be of any
great significance to LTs linked to styles - the VBA method produced
firm linking before we started using named templates. As I said in my
previous post, the 'name' is not an index, but rather a 'label' that can
be passed around the list templates.
Still a lot to find out here - wonder if it will all be overtaken by
2003 ?
Margaret Aldis - Microsoft Word MVP
Syntagma partnership site: http://www.syntagma.co.uk
Word MVP FAQ site: http://www.mvps.org/word
In article <1d2f086c.03043...@posting.google.com>, Bruce
Brown <Empyrea...@aol.com> writes
--
Margaret Aldis - Microsoft Word MVP
Syntagma partnership site: http://www.syntagma.co.uk
JGM
understand this facet of Word more thoroughly.
I had to test it out, and under Windows and Office XP I came to the
following conclusion:
You cannot use named list template with LISTNUM fields and then select a
LISTNUM field and try to modify that list through B&N.
It did not matter how the list was created and with what parameters (using
styles or not), every time I did that Word crashed (I sent a good dozen
crash reports to Microsoft!)! Margaret, I have learned a lot from your
posts, thank you again, but I think with your experience you should know
that the following is not true when dealing with Microsoft products:
> whose number format you want to change, then Bullets and Numbering (it
> is even offered on the context menu, so this must surely be intended
> use?).
With my limited experience I have often notice that selections were
available, but did not work! It maybe intended, but it does not necessarily
work!
Finally, I noticed that if I inserted a LISTNUM field based on no name or
based on one of the Word default names (Legal, and so on), then I was able
to go directly to the B&N when selecting the LISTNUM field first. But in all
those cases, most options in the customization pane where greyed out, except
for the numbering format options. So it seems that Word did not intend the
B&N to be a place to name LISTNUM schemes (even if you can insert a LISTNUM
field based on a list template already created). This is probably why it
crashes when you select a LISTNUM field based on a custom name, and then go
to B&N, Word cannot handle the name because normally it does not display any
under these circumstances [ Just a wild guess ;-) ]. There is an easy
workaround though.
Create a list template (in the B&N dialog) and name it. Apply it to a
LISTNUM field. If you want to later modify the behaviour of that list, DON'T
select a LISTNUM field, go to the B&N, find the pane that corresponds to
your scheme and modify it. The changes will be reflected in the document,
even in the LISTNUM fields that were already inserted based on the said list
template. Anyway, that was my experience, maybe all this happened because I
did something unaware. but it was pretty consistent.
Cheers.
--
_________________________________________
Jean-Guy Marcil
proje...@sympatico.ca
"Margaret Aldis" <Marg...@nospam.demon.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de
news:pLbgx+Dp...@nospam.demon.co.uk...
Bruce Brown
Margaret, but I see there's one now. At long last, justice has been
done. Permit me to offer my sincerest congratulations.
Well, you and Bob were right. It is possible to create a named LISTNUM
list without style linkage (he said between bites of crow). It finally
worked under your tutelage but led to a rather large and unappetizing
bug which you've probably noticed often. It goes as follows:
* On a blank new doc, put in a few hard returns and go to Format >
Bullets and Numbering > Outline Numbered. Click a window, click
Customize. Name the list template "Ape." In the level 1 number
style, insert the word "Ape" before the number.
* Click OK. The number is now on the screen in the Normal style.
* Click the E-Z 1,2,3 numbering icon next to the E-Z bullet icon on
the Formatting toolbar. The number disappears.
* Open the LISTNUM field options. Note that the name Ape is now
there. Now put in the LISTNUM field specifying the Ape list at level
1.
* Voila! Perfect - so far.
* Now go to the empty paragraph below and click the E-Z 1,2,3 icon
again. Oh, dear. We can't have our E-Z numbers starting with "Ape,"
can we? We'll fix that real quick.
* Let's go back into Format > Bullets and Numbering, choose the
Numbered tab, and click any box with 1,2,3 numbering, then OK, OK.
Voila! The E-Z number is now formatted right. But the LISTNUM field
has lost its ape. Oh, so what? That's no problem.
* Back we go into Format > Bullets and Numbering, click the window
with Ape in level 1 then Customize. Oh, dear. We seem to have lost
the LISTNUM field name. Well, so what? Let's just rename the Ape
list and get back to business.
* Exiting Bullets and Numbering, let's put in another LISTNUM field.
Oh, my word! Now we have two Apes under the same roof. Uh oh.
* You've got the gist of it. Keep on trucking. See how many Ape
lists you can create before the Apes start calling themselves Ape2,
Ape3, etc.
* Forgot to mention that the number of spurious list templates being
spawned here is mounting at the rate of one or two per edit.
This experiment raises an issue that I could not readily find on these
threads, namely, duplicate list template names. Those "unique
identifiers" you spoke of (I believe you used the word "unique?";
could be my faulty memory) are not so unique after all. This seems to
be a 100% registry issue. It may be that we are seeing that which no
longer exists, like light from stars that died millions of years ago.
It is difficult to understand how one "unique identifier" or "label"
or "name" can simultaneously point to several different lists, but
that seems to be exactly what happens.
Another issue is one raised by you: "I now think list template names
are 'designed' to support separate LISTNUM numbering schemes, and not
to enable styles and fields to share a named scheme, attractive
though this seemed."
Your hypothesis leaves me a bit nervous. If I'm reading you
correctly, you seem to imply that the primary aim of numbering schemes
is to foster the use of LISTNUM fields. I'm probably reading too much
into your words.
A third, final issue is how practical it is to set up named list
templates, unlinked to styles, for the express use of the LISTNUM
field. CAN be done, as you've proven, but speaking in terms of pure
utility, to what extent SHOULD it be done? There's the issue: how
much numbering power does one gain thereby?
Your advices are eagerly awaited as always, and congratulations again
on your MVP designation. - Bruce P.S. I shall be missing Professor
Whitehead and his horses.
===========================================================================
"JGM" <no-...@leaveme.alone> wrote in message news:<u54j6Y#DDHA...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>...
Klaus Linke
I don't get the crashes, and get completely different results for your
experiment (using Word2000; though the results are no less surprising and
buggy).
Much of it probably hasn't to do with LISTNUM fields or named list
templates, though.
The 1,2,3 numbering button is an invention from hell. When you use it, list
templates will reproduce faster than bunnies.
Plus I seldom get the button to apply the numbering I want (though this may
be my fault -- see below).
If you use named list templates, you see what is happening (the button not
applying the list template you expect, or creating the Ape2, Ape23 ... list
templates).
I never understood how the 1,2,3 numbering button was supposed to work.
Which list template does it apply? When does it create a new list template
and why? The short help on the command ("FormatNumberDefault: Creates a
numbered list based on the current defaults") doesn't really help a lot.
In the few document templates I have done for others, I have made the 1,2,3
button apply a numbered style. Until somebody can explain to me how the
built-in button works (preferably in less than 100 pages), I won't use it.
One thing I didn't get in your last post: You say that the list template's
name isn't a unique identifier.
That can either mean that you can have two different list templates with
the same name in a document, or that the same list template can be accessed
by two different names. Neither ever happened in my experience. Though
perhaps either I missed it up to now, or misunderstood you.
Greetings,
(and Congrats to Margaret!!)
Klaus
Bruce Brown
The differing results we get are definitely attributable to your being
in Word 2000 and my being in Word 2002.
In Word 2002 the dialog for inserting a LISTNUM field has a new
feature that didn't exist in earlier versions (as far as I remember),
namely, a list of named templates to choose from (outline-numbered, of
course, since the other two types can't be named). For the first
time, Word officially acknowledges the names you've assigned to list
templates, manually or with VBA. This "Official Directory of Named
List Templates," so to speak, is almost surely taken from the registry
because it includes all names you've assigned, plus duplicate names,
plus randomly generated spurious names like Ape 2, Ape 22, etc.
With the Ape experiments, as the Ape population grew, so did the
number of list templates named Ape. Sometimes there was Ape and Ape;
sometimes Ape, Ape and Ape; sometimes Ape, Ape, Ape 2, Ape 22, etc.
According the "Official Directory," all were validly named list
templates available for use by the LISTNUM field. However, when
different Ape lists were used by the field, my results showed that the
levels higher than 1 were duplicating and incrementing the same list.
This is why I hypothesized that multiple appearances of the same list
name may be akin to the light we see today from stars that died
millions of years ago. Those duplicate names may represent vanished
memory holes in the registry and nothing more.
In connection with list templates, there is a mysterious item called
the "list overrides table" that only you and one other person seem to
know anything about. A search of Help, the Knowledge Base and these
threads reveals little more than your name.
You said on July 31, 2001, in the "List Numbering Revisited" thread:
"Every restart needs a different entry in the "list overrides"-table,
and Word
2000 does not correctly update that table in the document you paste
into. The
re-starts will still be copied into the new document, but since they
all have
the same entry in the "list overrides table", only the first re-start
*will*
re-start. Delete that paragraph, and suddenly the second re-start will
become
active ..."
Forgive my ignorance of the "list overrides table" but I seem to be in
good company; a search of the threads reveals no curiosity about it
whatsoever.
Could it be, Klaus, that without realizing it, you journeyed to the
very heart of darkness itself? Did you keep a diary? Were you
captured, and if so, how were you rescued?
I should be most grateful if you would reveal where the "list
overrides table" lives; how it can be seen, touched and tested; and
any other information you deem pertinent.
Agreed, that the 1,2,3 icon is an invention from hell that probably
ought to be DOA (Disabled On Arrival). But I also have a sneaking
suspicion that it contains deep, dark secrets about the structure and
workings of the numbering gallery . . . like the "list overrides
table."
Thank you in advance for filling us in on the "list overrides table."
I hope Margaret will be along shortly with the benefit of her advices
too. - Bruce
===================================================================
"Klaus Linke" <fotosatz...@t-online.de> wrote in message news:<#Y4YvBzE...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>...
Klaus Linke
Hope you don't give me too much credit. I'm a bloody amateur at this.
> This "Official Directory of Named List Templates," so to
> speak, is almost surely taken from the registry because it
> includes all names you've assigned, plus duplicate names,
> plus randomly generated spurious names like Ape 2, Ape 22, etc.
The list templates are stored in the document, not the registry.
What is stored in the registry between Word sessions are the list templates
that are visible in the List Gallery (but those in turn are just a rather
random selection of default list templates and recently used list templates
from documents you worked on).
I'll check out Word2002's "directory" of list templates one of these days.
To me, it comes as a big surprise that it contains duplicate names, and my
first guess would still be that there is only one list template "Ape", and
the other references to it are spurious.
The randomly generated list templates like Ape2, Ape22 and so on are only
too familiar from Word2000. Word will generate them given half a chance,
and to make matters worse, the list templates that are no longer in use
stay around. They are only deleted routinely if their number exceeds 400 or
so, when you save the document.
The "list override table" (and the "list table") are terms from the RTF
specification:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sample.asp?url=/MSDN-FILES/027/001/758/
msdncompositedoc.xml
Don't take my posts regarding them too seriously; they were the result of
2-3 hours looking at the RTF specs and some simple sample documents.
RTF does contain a lot of redundant stuff, and I'm not that familiar with
the format (though I still believe the sentences you cited to be true).
To understand how Word's numbering works, you can look at the user
interface as a black box and watch what happens when you do different
things.
This approach can't take you far, because in the case of numbering, things
get too complex, and because you can't really see what is happening behind
the scenes.
VBA isn't too much help, since it's an abstraction of what's really going
on: More aimed at keeping things simple for the programmer than aimed at
reflecting the inner workings.
It seemed (and seems) to me that to really understand things, you'd need to
know the data structures that are used, and what happens with them when you
do different things (copy list paragraphs inside a document or between
documents, restart lists, override formatting that's defined in the list
template ...).
Since the binary file format isn't well documented (at least publicly), the
RTF format specification is the next best thing to look at. It's far from
perfect, because the format is very verbose, often including redundant
information.
But still you can use it to decide some interesting questions. For example,
you could directly look into a file that shows two list templates named
"Ape", and decide if there really are two different list tables (with
different IDs but the same name) stored in the document, or if there's only
one (and a buggy "official directory" in the user interface).
Since I'm still on Word2000, I don't know how (named/unnamed) list styles
figure in all this, and how they are related to (named/unnamed) list
templates.
Regards,
Klaus
Margaret Aldis
First, thanks for the congrats. Yes, I will miss the Whitehead sig, but
there wasn't enough room for the cavalry as well as more useful but
prosaic details and links. Anyway, I'm not sure I haven't run right out
of fresh horses!
About list template names. I don't have much to add to what I
discovered in my experimentation with mixing styles and listnums (11
April in this thread - mainly relates to problems in keeping the names
stuck to the list templates linked to styles) and this in the follow up
on the 16th:
> What is interesting from the point of view of the underlying model
> (something Klaus and John Nurick put a lot of effort into
investigating)
> is that the name doesn't seem to be an 'identifier' for the LT, more a
> movable label that can be attached to different LTs at different
times.
> I guess this is why the documentation says you can't use the name as
> an index on the ListTemplates collection (though in fact you can for
> ActiveDocument.ListTemplates).
I agree with Klaus that the ListGallery is basically irrelevant here -
as Bruce so poetically puts it, it may include the light of stars long
dead - and indeed potential future list templates yet to be born or
mutated. It seems to me list template names appearing here are just like
the multiple style name linkages you see in the panes - they don't tell
you anything about either the list templates stored in the document, or
which of those templates currently 'have the baton'. It's only when you
apply or customize a pane that a template with those characteristics
springs into life - and may at that moment change or create style
linkages and the list template name in the document.
In the document, at any point in time, I believe a LT name points to
just one list template, but it can be moved around - this is what I
meant when I said it was not a (fixed) 'identifier' for a unique list
template. What it does conveniently do in VBA is let you access and
modify an existing LT, instead of constantly creating new ones every
time you make a change.
However, I have yet to solve the mystery of how on one occasion I
achieved a zombie name in the LISTNUM field list, which was not the
current name of any of the list templates in the document, but could not
be used as the name of a new list template as it was 'already in use'.
This suggests that maybe a list template name really is like a token
which has a life of its own - maybe this is where the built-in LISTNUM
names come in???
I can't throw any light on the names with suffixes, but I've never seen
them and I think that supports a view that they relate to restarting
lists - that is, creating a new list object with the 'same' list
template. I never do this as I use the 'dummy style' method. I was going
to do some investigation in this area anyway as the restart question
keeps coming up, though I'm a bit limited at the moment as I don't have
my normal machine or access to 2002. I will post back to this
ridiculously long thread if I do find anything novel, but don't hold
your breath! I may be back to you in the meantime, Bruce, for more info
on the 'positional' method of mixing LISTNUMs and styles though, since
you seem to have the best experience on making this work reliably.
--
Margaret Aldis - Microsoft Word MVP
Syntagma partnership site: http://www.syntagma.co.uk
Word MVP FAQ site: http://www.mvps.org/word
In article <e7uT2j3E...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, Klaus Linke
<fotosatz...@t-online.de> writes
--
Word Heretic
The Ape problem is due to the proliferation of old list templates when
new ones get defined. As there is no backwards reference from the
style to the list template, it is impossible to tell which is the real
slim shady list template. All the relevant LT's seem to point to the
style in question, and indeed often haave straneg ranges attached to
them where they believe they are still hanging out.
The old list templates are there, to stretch your analogy they are now
red dwarfs and you were seeing their nova. A 'sticking list template'
is a temporary thing, so nova seems appropriate :-)
The list overrides table, although I have yet to see such a beast I
can have a damn good guess, is MS's attempt to duplicate my
methodology for dealing with list restarts.
My way does this:
Scan document for restart points and store them in an array.
Restyle document
Re-apply restarts to the listed paragraphs.
Ms try to do this dynamically rather than statically at some important
time. Thus each paragraph needs a style independant pointer to some
big brother that will kick in the restart after some sort of
autoformatting doodad.
The 1,2,3 icon allows direct manipulation of the directly attached
list template of the selection. This may not be the correct LT for the
style.
Empyrea...@aol.com (Bruce Brown) was spinning this yarn:
Steve Hudson
Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
Tricky stuff with Word or words for you.
Email: word_h...@yahoo.com.au
Products: http://www.geocities.com/word_heretic/products.html
Spellbooks: 735 pages of dump left and dropping...
The VBA Beginner's Spellbook: For all VBA users.
Bruce Brown
Klaus, thank you for the RTF info and link; it didn't work but
eventually I found this one which is dedicated to explaining RTF
files:
http://www.logictran.com/RTF/RTF115_c.htm
I marvel that you were able to grasp enough in a few hours to comment
so intelligently, Klaus. It will probably take me forever.
Margaret, could your zombie list name have come from another document
you were working on a week earlier and had forgotten about? That's
the only explanation I can think of.
Steve, I am intrigued by, but frankly don't understand, your
three-point method for re-starts. If it is not a commercial,
copyrighted method (for sale only) you may want to explain further
and/or provide code.
Of special interest are these criteria: (i) does it apply to simple
lists as well as outline-numbered lists? (ii) does the list template
need to be named? (iii) can you re-start at a specified number higher
than 1? (iv) will the re-started numbering survive more than one
pasting with the re-start value you assign? (v) does your method
involve anything "hidden?" and (vi) is it used on only on existing
paragraphs or can it be used for inserting a new paragraph?
When John McGhie said "Word's numbering is beyond human comprehension"
he was right. Perhaps we ought to have stopped further attempts at
understanding then and there? All such attempts seem doomed to
ultimate fruitlessness. - Bruce
=========================================================================
Margaret Aldis <Marg...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<kcNTUPE3...@nospam.demon.co.uk>...
Klaus Linke
My understanding of all this is still very foggy, but some things you said
don't seem to match my experiences:
It seems to me that Word doesn't rely on what style is given in the list
template(s) when it does the actual numbering, and doesn't need to.
You say there is no backward reference from the style to the list
template...
It seems to me that the style has a link in its definition when you look at
the style definition in the RTF file:
You'll see something like \ls2. That is a reference to the second list
override table, which then in turn points to a unique list template.
Both list tables and list override tables need to have unique IDs: There
doesn't seem to be much danger of confusion.
So I don't think there is ever a problem with outdated/unused/wrong list
templates hanging around and confusing Word. There are enough problems
without such complications.
The other point you mentioned seems much more likely to cause problems:
> The 1,2,3 icon allows direct manipulation of the directly attached
> list template of the selection. This may not be the correct LT for the
> style.
Amen!
Other problems seems that Word will mess up if you select several
paragraphs at once and use the 1,2,3 icon to apply a list template, or
worse, apply restarts. And that Word will mess up if you edit a list
template linked to styles and don't do it through the top level style. And
that Word will probably mess up if you copy paragraphs formatted with
numbered styles between documents in which those styles aren't defined
*exactly* the same. And that Word always messes up anyway if you copy/paste
text with more than one manually applied restart. Probably that's not the
whole list...
BTW, I just saw a cite in the RTF specification that supports Margaret's
suspicion that list template names were added to support (user-defined)
ListNum fields:
"The argument for \listname is a string that is the name of this list.
Names allow ListNum fields to specify the list they belong to."
I don't think it hurts at all, though, when you use named list templates
for style-based numbering. At least you'll see when you've messed up (Ape2,
Ape22... list templates appearing), and you can quickly check which list
template is linked to some paragraph or style at any time:
MsgBox Selection.Range.ListFormat.ListTemplate.Name
MsgBox myStyle.ListTemplate.Name
As to a mix of style-based numbering and ListNum fields: I haven't run into
more problems with that combination yet than I'm used from numbering.
I wouldn't rely on it for anything important; but this statement applies to
practically anything relating to numbering in Word, except style-based
numbering (including Margaret's "dummy restart" styles if necessary), and
even that gets problematic if you want/need to paste between documents.
8-/
Klaus
Bob S
wrote:
>Followed your instructions exactly but, as Leigh Webber pointed out
>about six months ago, when you select the LISTNUM field and click
>Format > Bullets and Numbering, it causes Word to crash. It did then
>and sure enough it did just now too.
I used these instructions several times before posting the note, and
it had never caused a crash.
I tried it again after seeing your post and eventually I did cause one
crash. Maybe Word senses what is expected of it...
It seems to work fine about 95% of the time here. I don't know what
the difference between your experience and mine is caused by.
Now that my success rate has gone from 100% to 95% I would have to
conclude that this is too buggy to use seriously. Maybe continued
experimentation will eventually show what the critical factors are.
Bob S