| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
If not Master Document, then what?
So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the
alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#2
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Just create a single large document.
-- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller
documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested?
-- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#5
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it,
I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#6
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
See http://daiya.mvps.org/includetext.htm
-- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#7
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Standard workarounds for people who wanted Master Documents (and I don't
see how Master Document is an appropriate feature for re-using content anyhow--a subdocument belonging to multiple master documents sounds either impossible or extra-prone to corruption): IncludeText Fields can partially substitute for the Master Document feature€”for an introduction to them, see he http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/TblsFldsFm...textfields.htm Word experts generally advise combining long documents into one file, if possible, and you will find more information on controlling those big files he http://daiya.mvps.org/bookword.htm Creating a Table of Contents Spanning Multiple Documents http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/P...cle.asp?ID=148 See the €śNumber Pages Across Files€ť section at this link: http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindy...r/MiscFram.htm Deb wrote: So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#8
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Thank you, Daiya.
I have to admit, I had never looked into Word's Master Document feature until last nigh and was horrified to see that the documents were actually part of the Master, not links like they used to be in WordPerfect. My "concept" of Master Document comes from WordPerfect, which had it nailed. I will read up further on the links you provide. THanks again. "Daiya Mitchell" wrote: Standard workarounds for people who wanted Master Documents (and I don't see how Master Document is an appropriate feature for re-using content anyhow--a subdocument belonging to multiple master documents sounds either impossible or extra-prone to corruption): IncludeText Fields can partially substitute for the Master Document feature€”for an introduction to them, see he http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/TblsFldsFm...textfields.htm Word experts generally advise combining long documents into one file, if possible, and you will find more information on controlling those big files he http://daiya.mvps.org/bookword.htm Creating a Table of Contents Spanning Multiple Documents http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/P...cle.asp?ID=148 See the €śNumber Pages Across Files€ť section at this link: http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindy...r/MiscFram.htm Deb wrote: So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#9
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Suzanne:
I have experimented with this field and find that the resulting formatting is inconsistent at best. For example, if I'm inserting a file that begins with Heading 1 style followed by a body style, sometimes the files are inserted with the body style being replaced with the Heading 1 style or vice versa. It's all very inconsistent and erratic. Are there any "best practices" to follow when using this field to avoid the resulting unformatting of the final document? Thanks for your help. "Deb" wrote: Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#10
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
I have no experience with this, but you might see if there are any helpful
tips at http://daiya.mvps.org/includetext.htm -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... Suzanne: I have experimented with this field and find that the resulting formatting is inconsistent at best. For example, if I'm inserting a file that begins with Heading 1 style followed by a body style, sometimes the files are inserted with the body style being replaced with the Heading 1 style or vice versa. It's all very inconsistent and erratic. Are there any "best practices" to follow when using this field to avoid the resulting unformatting of the final document? Thanks for your help. "Deb" wrote: Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#11
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Nothing tere, unfortunately. Hopefully, someone else will post who has
experienced this problem. Thanks! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I have no experience with this, but you might see if there are any helpful tips at http://daiya.mvps.org/includetext.htm -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... Suzanne: I have experimented with this field and find that the resulting formatting is inconsistent at best. For example, if I'm inserting a file that begins with Heading 1 style followed by a body style, sometimes the files are inserted with the body style being replaced with the Heading 1 style or vice versa. It's all very inconsistent and erratic. Are there any "best practices" to follow when using this field to avoid the resulting unformatting of the final document? Thanks for your help. "Deb" wrote: Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#12
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
A guess, but this might apply:
"If you use the InsertField method to create the IncludeText fields, Word will automatically add a \* MergeFormat switch to the field. In most cases, you do not want this switch and will need to delete it. The \* MergeFormat switch will change the original formatting of your included text. Help offers more information about this switch. [Thanks to newsgroup poster Chip Orange for this tip]" Deb wrote: Nothing tere, unfortunately. Hopefully, someone else will post who has experienced this problem. Thanks! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I have no experience with this, but you might see if there are any helpful tips at http://daiya.mvps.org/includetext.htm -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... Suzanne: I have experimented with this field and find that the resulting formatting is inconsistent at best. For example, if I'm inserting a file that begins with Heading 1 style followed by a body style, sometimes the files are inserted with the body style being replaced with the Heading 1 style or vice versa. It's all very inconsistent and erratic. Are there any "best practices" to follow when using this field to avoid the resulting unformatting of the final document? Thanks for your help. "Deb" wrote: Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#13
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Hm. What du you recommend for large documents with a large number of users? I
used to use master and subdocuments for this purpose, both WordPerfect until 1994, thereafter Word, so that all authors could edit independently of each other, and control access to the various chapters. In addition the styles in the master document overrode those in the subdocuments. I need also to be able to edit the master document even when subdocuments are open, as well as printing the expanded master document. We shall shortly be using SharePoint, and I cannot find anything on the web to guide me. A typical usage will be 100-200 pages, a lot of graphics, 10-25 users simultaneously, very short deadlines. What do others do? -- alu "Daiya Mitchell" wrote: A guess, but this might apply: "If you use the InsertField method to create the IncludeText fields, Word will automatically add a \* MergeFormat switch to the field. In most cases, you do not want this switch and will need to delete it. The \* MergeFormat switch will change the original formatting of your included text. Help offers more information about this switch. [Thanks to newsgroup poster Chip Orange for this tip]" Deb wrote: Nothing tere, unfortunately. Hopefully, someone else will post who has experienced this problem. Thanks! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I have no experience with this, but you might see if there are any helpful tips at http://daiya.mvps.org/includetext.htm -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... Suzanne: I have experimented with this field and find that the resulting formatting is inconsistent at best. For example, if I'm inserting a file that begins with Heading 1 style followed by a body style, sometimes the files are inserted with the body style being replaced with the Heading 1 style or vice versa. It's all very inconsistent and erratic. Are there any "best practices" to follow when using this field to avoid the resulting unformatting of the final document? Thanks for your help. "Deb" wrote: Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#14
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
Thanks, Daiya. This solved the problem. The only one left has to do with
Word deleting my Section Break Next Page that separates each inserted document each time I update the IncludeText field. The destination file has a Section Break, Next Page and looks like this: =====Section Break (Continuous)====== =====Section Break (Next Page)====== {INCLUDETEXT ....} For purposes of this posting, the ellipsis here are in place of my full path. After updating the IncludeText field, my file looks like this: =====Section Break (Continuous)====== =====Section Break (Continuous)====== thereby deleting my forced page breaks separting the inserted documents. I have tried it with having the source files begin with a Continuous Section Break and without a Continuous Section Break. In either case the Next Page Section Break is deleted each time I update the field. Geez, I hope there is a solution to this. THis INCLUDETEXT feature is EXACTLY what I need. Thanks. "Daiya Mitchell" wrote: A guess, but this might apply: "If you use the InsertField method to create the IncludeText fields, Word will automatically add a \* MergeFormat switch to the field. In most cases, you do not want this switch and will need to delete it. The \* MergeFormat switch will change the original formatting of your included text. Help offers more information about this switch. [Thanks to newsgroup poster Chip Orange for this tip]" Deb wrote: Nothing tere, unfortunately. Hopefully, someone else will post who has experienced this problem. Thanks! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I have no experience with this, but you might see if there are any helpful tips at http://daiya.mvps.org/includetext.htm -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... Suzanne: I have experimented with this field and find that the resulting formatting is inconsistent at best. For example, if I'm inserting a file that begins with Heading 1 style followed by a body style, sometimes the files are inserted with the body style being replaced with the Heading 1 style or vice versa. It's all very inconsistent and erratic. Are there any "best practices" to follow when using this field to avoid the resulting unformatting of the final document? Thanks for your help. "Deb" wrote: Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#15
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
I'm afraid I really don't know. I largely tested it with just next page
section breaks in the destination document between each IncludeText field, and no continuous breaks anywhere. Can you see what happens if you don't have that continuous section break there are all? Is the Next Page break actually being deleted, or converted to continuous? I think this link will help illuminate what Word is doing and maybe offer some things to test: http://word.mvps.org/faqs/formatting...thSections.htm Deb wrote: Thanks, Daiya. This solved the problem. The only one left has to do with Word deleting my Section Break Next Page that separates each inserted document each time I update the IncludeText field. The destination file has a Section Break, Next Page and looks like this: =====Section Break (Continuous)====== =====Section Break (Next Page)====== {INCLUDETEXT ....} For purposes of this posting, the ellipsis here are in place of my full path. After updating the IncludeText field, my file looks like this: =====Section Break (Continuous)====== =====Section Break (Continuous)====== thereby deleting my forced page breaks separting the inserted documents. I have tried it with having the source files begin with a Continuous Section Break and without a Continuous Section Break. In either case the Next Page Section Break is deleted each time I update the field. Geez, I hope there is a solution to this. THis INCLUDETEXT feature is EXACTLY what I need. Thanks. "Daiya Mitchell" wrote: A guess, but this might apply: "If you use the InsertField method to create the IncludeText fields, Word will automatically add a \* MergeFormat switch to the field. In most cases, you do not want this switch and will need to delete it. The \* MergeFormat switch will change the original formatting of your included text. Help offers more information about this switch. [Thanks to newsgroup poster Chip Orange for this tip]" Deb wrote: Nothing tere, unfortunately. Hopefully, someone else will post who has experienced this problem. Thanks! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I have no experience with this, but you might see if there are any helpful tips at http://daiya.mvps.org/includetext.htm -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... Suzanne: I have experimented with this field and find that the resulting formatting is inconsistent at best. For example, if I'm inserting a file that begins with Heading 1 style followed by a body style, sometimes the files are inserted with the body style being replaced with the Heading 1 style or vice versa. It's all very inconsistent and erratic. Are there any "best practices" to follow when using this field to avoid the resulting unformatting of the final document? Thanks for your help. "Deb" wrote: Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
|
#16
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
|
If not Master Document, then what?
In all cases, the next page section break is converted to a continuous
section break. It doesn't matter what combination of continuous versus next in either the source of destination; once I insert a INCLUDETEXT field, insert a next page section break, then at some point update the field, the next page section break is converted to a continuous. I have studied the document on the other end of the link you provide at great length. The recommendation is putting a continuous section break at the end of each source document; which I've tried. I've also tried a continuous section break at the beginning AND end of each source document -- all with the same results - once the field inthe destination document is updated the next page section break is converted to a continuous. I guess at this point having to re-enter the next page section break is lesser of the two evils. The alternative would be having to do Insert...File each time the source document is updated. Geez, I really wish there was a workaround to this. Are there are Microsoft reps around that could offer some insight? "Daiya Mitchell" wrote: I'm afraid I really don't know. I largely tested it with just next page section breaks in the destination document between each IncludeText field, and no continuous breaks anywhere. Can you see what happens if you don't have that continuous section break there are all? Is the Next Page break actually being deleted, or converted to continuous? I think this link will help illuminate what Word is doing and maybe offer some things to test: http://word.mvps.org/faqs/formatting...thSections.htm Deb wrote: Thanks, Daiya. This solved the problem. The only one left has to do with Word deleting my Section Break Next Page that separates each inserted document each time I update the IncludeText field. The destination file has a Section Break, Next Page and looks like this: =====Section Break (Continuous)====== =====Section Break (Next Page)====== {INCLUDETEXT ....} For purposes of this posting, the ellipsis here are in place of my full path. After updating the IncludeText field, my file looks like this: =====Section Break (Continuous)====== =====Section Break (Continuous)====== thereby deleting my forced page breaks separting the inserted documents. I have tried it with having the source files begin with a Continuous Section Break and without a Continuous Section Break. In either case the Next Page Section Break is deleted each time I update the field. Geez, I hope there is a solution to this. THis INCLUDETEXT feature is EXACTLY what I need. Thanks. "Daiya Mitchell" wrote: A guess, but this might apply: "If you use the InsertField method to create the IncludeText fields, Word will automatically add a \* MergeFormat switch to the field. In most cases, you do not want this switch and will need to delete it. The \* MergeFormat switch will change the original formatting of your included text. Help offers more information about this switch. [Thanks to newsgroup poster Chip Orange for this tip]" Deb wrote: Nothing tere, unfortunately. Hopefully, someone else will post who has experienced this problem. Thanks! "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: I have no experience with this, but you might see if there are any helpful tips at http://daiya.mvps.org/includetext.htm -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... Suzanne: I have experimented with this field and find that the resulting formatting is inconsistent at best. For example, if I'm inserting a file that begins with Heading 1 style followed by a body style, sometimes the files are inserted with the body style being replaced with the Heading 1 style or vice versa. It's all very inconsistent and erratic. Are there any "best practices" to follow when using this field to avoid the resulting unformatting of the final document? Thanks for your help. "Deb" wrote: Interesting. I have never used that field before. In experimenting with it, I keep getting the error: Error! Not a Valid Filename. The file will always be in the same directory as the file in which the FIELD will reside, so I am just entering the filename as filename.doc. Now how does this differ from Master Document? The Help feature indicates you can also push updates back to the source file by using the Ctrl + Shift + F7 keystroke. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Hasn't IncludeText already been suggested? -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... But what about re-use? The content of the large document is really smaller documents that needs to be re-used across multiple large documents. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Just create a single large document. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. "Deb" wrote in message ... So, I concede that the Master Document feature is a risk. So, what is the alternative to create a large document based on many small documents? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Help with my master document | Microsoft Word Help | |||
| Master Document Format | Microsoft Word Help | |||
| A master document tip! | Microsoft Word Help | |||
| Should I use master Document for this? | Microsoft Word Help | |||
| Master Document Question | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Linear Mode
