View Single Post
Old July 30th 07, 08:10 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.pagelayout
Stefan Blom
external usenet poster
Posts: 8,430
Default Why use Continuous Section Breaks always instead of Next Page?

But note that using old documents as a starting point for new ones is not the
best approach. In the long run, it contributes to document corruption. If
some portions of text must be reused, you can store them as AutoText entries

Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP

"mmhmm" wrote:

Yes - exactly. Thanks very much for confirming it - my approach seemed so
contrary to everything I was reading, even in the manuals for law firms and
complex Word templates. I can now show my boss something more than my shaky

The other approach would work too, but I don't think it's good for us as
documents are never "final" really - there will always be users who will take
elements of previous documents for new ones, rather than build from scratch.

Thanks again.

"Stefan Blom" wrote:

Now I see your point... Indeed, if the sections share all other properties,
then the type will be crucial, of course. In other words, what you are
saying is this: "Since the type of section for (say) text columns added to
the selection will always be Continuous, let's make all sections that type."

A different approach would be not to insert the "main" section breaks (the
ones between chapters) until editing is complete. That way, it will be less
likely that things get messed up, regardless of how many people edit the

Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP

"mmhmm" wrote in message
Thanks for the reply. I had read all the articles on the mvp site on
breaks (and templates) before creating the template. My reasoning was
as section "types" read forward, then as users will move things around
documents created in this template, then they will never lose the
or headers and footers if everything is the same type of section break.
example if they move a two column page (made with two continuous section
breaks) to before a "next page" section break, then the last continuous
section break of the two columns will take on the format of a Next Page
section break, and insert a blank page - therefore messing up their
pagination. However, if the section ends on a continuous section break as
you said, then headers and footers are included and everything reads as
normal. As long as I have a "Section 1" where everything is set and that
never moves, then it seems to work fine no matter what I do.

I just wanted a reason behind what I had been taught back in the late 90s
which seemed contrary to everything I'd been hearing and reading now. I
guess the best way to do it is to double check by creating a quick
with a mix of section styles and see how that functions as I cut and
move things around and insert things into it from other files.

Cheers for all the help.

"Stefan Blom" wrote:

I don't see why continuous sections should be "better" than the other
types... I do see a problem with them: usually, the first page header
footer) of such a section is hidden, unless the section break happens to
at the end of a page.

For more on sections, see

Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP

"mmhmm" wrote in message
news I once worked in Word Processing Centers and their template used only
Continuous Section Breaks after their Section 1 section - NEVER Next
section breaks. I never asked why, and now I need to set up a template
someone. I set it up with a "Section 1" (before which is Front Cover,
etc.) and then continuous, same as previous section breaks (with
first page for Section Headers) following on from this for each regular
section. The page title style on each page has a "page break before"
Everything works hunky-dory, but the person asked me why they shouldn't
Next Page section breaks. I told them it was for copying and pasting
their (often huge) reports - to preserve the page numbering and headers
footers etc. I also think that Next Page breaks include the phantom
the top of the page that you get with hard page breaks. However,
I'm not sure. What's the answer - why did I get taught originally to
this way? Are there any advantages to doing it the way I did it? Is
"old" way of thinking - were there corruption issues with it that newer
versions of Office have now cleared up? We are using Office 2003.