Outline #ing - Not enough levels

[Sandi Papineau]

We have a numbering system established that has nine levels. Is it possible
to have outline numbering schemes in Word with more than nine levels? Our
numbering levels are each attached to a style. How would a person do this?

Thanks!

[John McGhie [MVP - Word]]

In microsoft.public.word.numbering on Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:28:45 -0600,
"Sandi Papineau" <spap...@alvine.com> wrote:

Same answer Jonathan gave: Your numbering scheme is unuseable.

Try this:

1 Library
1.1 Volume
1.1.1 Book
1.1.1.1 Part
1.1.1.1.1 Chapter
1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 1
1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 2
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 3
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 4
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 5
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 6
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 7
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 8
1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Heading 9

See the problem? That's 14 levels :-)

If you really do this, do not expect any reader to be able to reliably find
their way down below your fifth level. After that, you are not adding
useful information. The reader simply will not comprehend the relationship
between:

Vol 1 Part 3 Chapter 17 Section 3.2.2.1.4.1 and Vol 1 Part 3 Chapter 17
Section 3.2.2.1.3.1.

In fact, it's the "Previous Section". But the reader has had it by then :-)

If you want to do it, you simply use manual numbering for the level that
won't fit. Normally you would manually number the higher levels, because
there are less of them.

So if you hand-type your chapter numbers, you can use Heading 1 for your
chapter sub-headings, and thus get ten levels in without great pain (to
yourself).

Hope this helps.

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

[Andrew Gabb]

See my previous comment on this issue. There are many documents in
the world that do this. I don't like it, but the standards came
before Word.

My normal approach is to try to take some of the stuff into a
separate volume or appendix (oops, there go another 4 or 5 levels if
the appendixes are in the same document), but it's not always
appropriate, and the document police may not agree. I sometimes can
make the structure 'flatter', but again, you face the document
police: 'section 4 *must* contain 'Detailed Requirements''.

I'm not trying to say anyone's wrong here (apart from the document
police, and I really shouldn't mention them), just that we engineers
have special needs that we can't just negotiate away.

Regardless of this, your advice is good, John.

Andrew

--
Andrew Gabb
email: ag...@tpgi.com.au Adelaide, South Australia
phone: +61 8 8342-1021, fax: +61 8 8269-3280
-----

[John McGhie [MVP - Word]]

Andrew:

Thanks for your kind comments.

I wince at the very thought of such documents (Yes, I know they're around:
I was forced to USE them when I was in the Air Force).

Cheers.

In microsoft.public.word.numbering on Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:44:19 +1030,
Andrew Gabb <ag...@tpgi.com.au> wrote:

> See my previous comment on this issue. There are many documents in
> the world that do this. I don't like it, but the standards came
> before Word.
>
> My normal approach is to try to take some of the stuff into a
> separate volume or appendix (oops, there go another 4 or 5 levels if
> the appendixes are in the same document), but it's not always
> appropriate, and the document police may not agree. I sometimes can
> make the structure 'flatter', but again, you face the document
> police: 'section 4 *must* contain 'Detailed Requirements''.
>
> I'm not trying to say anyone's wrong here (apart from the document
> police, and I really shouldn't mention them), just that we engineers
> have special needs that we can't just negotiate away.
>
> Regardless of this, your advice is good, John.
>
> Andrew

Please post follow-up questions to the newsgroup so that all may follow the thread.

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

That reminds me of the story Isaac Asimov tells in his autobiography (volume
1) about his time in the service. As a military clerk, he wrote a document
intended to be a parody of the military style (including the convoluted
index-style headings such "trousers, khaki, enlisted persons, for the use
of"). His superiors admired it so much that they drafted him to write a
style manual for the rest of the clerks. (Or something to that effect; I'm
sure someone will post back to correct all the details of this anecdote, but
I think the gist of it is correct.)

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft Word MVP
Words into Type
Fairhope, AL USA

John McGhie [MVP - Word] <jo...@mcghie-information.com.au> wrote in message
news:5brn0t8or6gn4apaf...@4ax.com...

> Andrew:
>
> Thanks for your kind comments.
>
> I wince at the very thought of such documents (Yes, I know they're around:
> I was forced to USE them when I was in the Air Force).
>
> Cheers.
>
> In microsoft.public.word.numbering on Wed, 08 Nov 2000 22:44:19 +1030,
> Andrew Gabb <ag...@tpgi.com.au> wrote:
>
> > See my previous comment on this issue. There are many documents in
> > the world that do this. I don't like it, but the standards came
> > before Word.
> >
> > My normal approach is to try to take some of the stuff into a
> > separate volume or appendix (oops, there go another 4 or 5 levels if
> > the appendixes are in the same document), but it's not always
> > appropriate, and the document police may not agree. I sometimes can
> > make the structure 'flatter', but again, you face the document
> > police: 'section 4 *must* contain 'Detailed Requirements''.
> >
> > I'm not trying to say anyone's wrong here (apart from the document
> > police, and I really shouldn't mention them), just that we engineers
> > have special needs that we can't just negotiate away.
> >
> > Regardless of this, your advice is good, John.
> >
> > Andrew
>

[Dave Rado]

See, I'm a quick learner. Do I get the job?

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbar...@zebra.net> wrote in message
news:eiPFspy...@cppssbbsa02.microsoft.com...

[John McGhie [MVP - Word]]

Suzanne:

I *swear* that story is TRUE!!!

In microsoft.public.word.numbering on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:57:25 -0600,

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbar...@zebra.net> wrote:

> That reminds me of the story Isaac Asimov tells in his autobiography (volume
> 1) about his time in the service. As a military clerk, he wrote a document
> intended to be a parody of the military style (including the convoluted
> index-style headings such "trousers, khaki, enlisted persons, for the use
> of"). His superiors admired it so much that they drafted him to write a
> style manual for the rest of the clerks. (Or something to that effect; I'm
> sure someone will post back to correct all the details of this anecdote, but
> I think the gist of it is correct.)

[John McGhie [MVP - Word]]

Nope!

It's "Defence Forces:Procurement:Standards:Information:Development:
Documentation:Design:Structure:Outlines:Numbering:Levels: Perceived
Insufficiency of...

12 levels. Always Most signigicant to least significant :-)

In microsoft.public.word.numbering on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:27:42 -0000, "Dave
Rado" <dr...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> See, I'm a quick learner. Do I get the job?
>
>

> "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbar...@zebra.net> wrote in message
> news:eiPFspy...@cppssbbsa02.microsoft.com...

> That reminds me of the story Isaac Asimov tells in his autobiography (volume
> 1) about his time in the service. As a military clerk, he wrote a document
> intended to be a parody of the military style (including the convoluted
> index-style headings such "trousers, khaki, enlisted persons, for the use
> of"). His superiors admired it so much that they drafted him to write a
> style manual for the rest of the clerks. (Or something to that effect; I'm
> sure someone will post back to correct all the details of this anecdote, but
> I think the gist of it is correct.)

[Jonathan West]

Extract from an inventory list for a Royal Navy destroyer in the 1930s

Glasses, port
Glasses, sherry
Glasses, wine
Glasses, x7 (aircraft, for the detection of)

<g>

--
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

"John McGhie [MVP - Word]" <jo...@mcghie-information.com.au> wrote in message

news:ta2q0tgv9p23kp4lo...@4ax.com...

> Suzanne:
>
> I *swear* that story is TRUE!!!
>

> In microsoft.public.word.numbering on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:57:25 -0600,

> "Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbar...@zebra.net> wrote:
>
> > That reminds me of the story Isaac Asimov tells in his autobiography
(volume
> > 1) about his time in the service. As a military clerk, he wrote a
document
> > intended to be a parody of the military style (including the convoluted
> > index-style headings such "trousers, khaki, enlisted persons, for the
use
> > of"). His superiors admired it so much that they drafted him to write a
> > style manual for the rest of the clerks. (Or something to that effect;
I'm
> > sure someone will post back to correct all the details of this anecdote,
but
> > I think the gist of it is correct.)
>
>

[Howard Kaikow]

You cannot have more than 9 levels for outlines.
You'll need to use SEQ fields for your numbering.

--
Please post your response to the newsgroup.
"Sandi Papineau" <spap...@alvine.com> wrote in message
news:eYbkd$PRAHA.259@cppssbbsa04...

[John Nurick]

My late godfather, an army doctor, insisted on the veracity of

Pots, chamber, rubber, officers, lunatic, for the use of

On Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:18:59 -0000, "Jonathan West" <jw...@mvps.org>
wrote:

>Extract from an inventory list for a Royal Navy destroyer in the 1930s
>
>Glasses, port
>Glasses, sherry
>Glasses, wine
>Glasses, x7 (aircraft, for the detection of)
>
><g>

--
John

Please reply to the newsgroup and not by e-mail. That way, more
brain cells get to work on the problem!