[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I guess you could look at it that way. g

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Stefan Blom" wrote in message
...
To you, it WAS new behavior, then. :-)

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
I certainly didn't mean to imply that it was new behavior, just that it
was something I discovered relatively recently. I don't use SEQ fields
often, but I created AutoText entries when I was cataloging hundreds of
digital pictures my husband and I took on a trip to Britain. Both his
frame numbers and mine are in a more or less continuous series, but they
are not part of the same series, so having two different SEQ sequences,
with an AT entry for each, was helpful in inserting the frame numbers.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Stefan Blom" wrote in message
...
Actually, that behavior has been around for quite some time. :-) See
the following KB article:

WD2000: Fields Inserted in an AutoText Entry Are Updated Automatically
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/211506/en-us

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
I have found that one great advantage of saving SEQ fields as AutoText
entries is that, when inserted, they are automatically updated (unlike
copy/pasted SEQ fields). They don't update automatically after
insertion,
but just having them right when first inserted is a big plus.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org

"Stefan Blom" wrote in message
...
SEQ fields cannot be attached to styles, but you can create "example
fields" and save those as AutoText entries; it will make the insertion
a
bit faster.

Also, note that SEQ fields may need manual updating, for example if
you
delete one of them. The quickest way to do that is switch to Print
Preview and then back to your favorite view.

For more on SEQ fields, see this article:

Field codes: Seq (Sequence) field
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/wo...CH061047291033

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Amy" wrote in message
...
Thanks, I will try that.

Do I use the SEQ fields when setting up the paragraph style, or
simply
manually enter the fields at each procedure?




"Stefan Blom" wrote:

Any numbering level within an outline-numbered list can only be
restarted by higher levels within the same outline list.

You might be able to set up your procedural lists with SEQ fields;
those can be set to restart after a particular heading level.

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP



"Amy" wrote in message
...
I have a document that I need to insert two separate outline
numbered
lists into and I'm not quite sure how to do it.

My first list uses the built-in Heading styles and I've modified
them
to 1.0 for Heading 1, 1.1 for Heading 2, etc.

My second list uses paragraph styles that I created to capture
procedural steps underneath the main headings. Because my
indenturing
in the heading goes so deep (out of my control, unfortunately), I
have three levels of procedural steps that each start inset a
little
bit more from the left margin. Headings 1 - 4 all start at .5",
Heading 5 starts at .75", and Headings 6 - 7 start at 1". This is
so
the first line of text in my procedural step lines up with the
text
in the heading following all the 1.1.1s. It looks like this:

L1N1 (Level 1 Procedural Step Level 1)--starts with 1. Text here
L1N2 (Level 1 Procedural Step Level 2)--starts with a. Text
here
L2N1 (Level 2 Procedural Step Level 1)--starts with 1.
Text here
L2N2 (Level 2 Procedural Step Level 2)--starts with a. Text here
L3N1 (Level 3 Procedural Step Level 1)--starts with 1. Text here
L3N2 (Level 3 Procedural Step Level 2)--starts with a. Text here

What I'm having trouble with is getting these procedural steps to
restart at 1 after each major heading. I created an outline
numbered
list and linked it to the paragraph styles but that doesn't seem
to
work. I can manually reset them all, of course, but that kind of
defeats the purpose. Is generating such a complex numbering scheme
beyond Word's ability?


.