Thanks. It was accidentally added as we chose the "insert field" menu
choice the first time we experimented with this idea, and that adds it by
default (where-as Insert File and selecting "as link" does not).

Now, if we put all the files in the same dir, and add a little macro
support, the only problem I am worried about, and need to study further, is
Daiya's report of "fields within fields", which we do use (placing a field
result inside of a TC field).

We may go back to using this for our multi-person, multi-file project
instead of Jonathan's RD approach, as this does provide us with a single
large document at the end (once all IncludeText fields have been unlinked),
and that ends up being important to us.

Thanks for help from all.

Chip


"Charles Kenyon" wrote in
message ...
The MergeFormat switch should be removed in most cases.
--
Charles Kenyon

Word New User FAQ & Web Directory: http://addbalance.com/word

Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of
Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide) http://addbalance.com/usersguide

See also the MVP FAQ: http://www.mvps.org/word which is awesome!
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.

"Chip Orange" wrote in message
...
I should clarify this by saying the problem I reported here only occurs
if
the \* MergeFormat switch is used in the IncludeText field. If not,
then
we
only have the problems Daiya mentions in her article to deal with!

Chip


"Chip Orange" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the suggestion. I will go read the material you referenced.

What we found yesterday, when we tried IncludeText, was that it
immediately
had formatting issues when you did an "update field" in the "master".
In
particular, it translated invisible style separators into visible
paragraph
marks, and so, changed the line break and pagination where they were
used
in
the subdoc.

Are there known issues with IncludeText like this? Are style
separators
so
unusual that if we eliminated their use, we could count on IncludeText
otherwise working ok?

Thanks.


"Charles Kenyon" wrote in
message ...
Use a common template and you can include parts that are in separate
documents using IncludeText fields. Look at Steve Hudson's methods
for
using
Master Documents and decide whether you would be able to enforce
following
them.
--
Charles Kenyon

Word New User FAQ & Web Directory: http://addbalance.com/word

Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of
Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide) http://addbalance.com/usersguide

See also the MVP FAQ: http://www.mvps.org/word which is awesome!
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.

"Chip Orange" wrote in message
...
Since we're talking about master doc feature here, I'd like to ask:

We have a need to create a large doc collaboratively, with many
authors
working on sub doc portions concurrently. We need someone to
routinely
be
able to put the entire doc together, print it, and otherwise review
it.

We are being (the IT shop) asked repeatedly about master doc
feature,
and
are passing on the advice we read here that it's not safe, but we
have
little to offer in its place except copy and paste (our formatting
requirements are rigid).

Any suggestions on how we should best accomplish this?

Thanks.

Chip



p.s.

We did have a short try with includetext fields, and found on
ocasions
they
too caused problems with improper formatting of the final doc.