where would I look? in Excel? In Word? In SQL? Does it matter how the field
types are defined in SQL? I've copied data from the incorrectly merging
fields into Word and Notepad to compare them against what's working and the
only noticible difference in the non-truncating fields is that they start and
end with angle brackets (because it's XML strings).
"Doug Robbins - Word MVP" wrote:
Then you need to look at the difference between the data for the one field
that merges correctly and those that don't.
--
Hope this helps.
Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my
services on a paid consulting basis.
Doug Robbins - Word MVP
"cheshirecat" wrote in message
...
Yes, I have. The data is complete in Excel.
"Doug Robbins - Word MVP" wrote:
Have you confirmed that the data is complete in the Excel spreadsheet?
Maybe the truncation is between the SQL Server and Excel.
--
Hope this helps.
Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my
services on a paid consulting basis.
Doug Robbins - Word MVP
"cheshirecat" wrote in message
news
I've been reading the threads and trying the advice to no avail. When I
merge
into Word 2003 from an Excel spreadsheet that's pulling data off a SQL
Server, two fields are truncated at 255, but a third is not. I've tried
padding the first row, but it doesn't work, nor does chosing the
connection
method. Any ideas?
thanks,
Linda