Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
Remove Mergefield to keep rich text
I have trying to get this suggestion to work from mvps.org:
this suggestion is to keep Rich Text when creating a merge document. Display the field codes and remove word "mergefield" from the field, leaving only the field name. In the example, the content come out with filed Remarks as Arial, and yellow. Example: { Remarks } I am using office 2007 with data stored in access as a rich text memo field and merging into a word document. I have tried changing my data source from an actual table in access to an html document, a RTF document, excel spreadsheet, and a docx based off the html document. obviously a lot of people would like to seea rich text merge field so if i can get this to work maybe i can then help others. |
#2
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
Remove Mergefield to keep rich text
In my experience, the approach of using a word data source and using a
REF field instead of a MERGEFIELD does work, at least in simple cases. I would expect .doc, .docx and .rtf to work, but with .htm it depends on the mechanism Word uses to get the data, which can either be its internal text converter (which would probably work) or an OLE DB provider (which would not). However, a. this technique goes back to the early days of Word before MERGEfiELD fields existed, and cannot really be regarded as "supported" b. You don't say anything about what you are actually seeing. Is there any sign that it is working at all? Or perhaps some of the formatting is there, but not enough for it to be a useful technique for you? Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk tighe wrote: I have trying to get this suggestion to work from mvps.org: this suggestion is to keep Rich Text when creating a merge document. Display the field codes and remove word "mergefield" from the field, leaving only the field name. In the example, the content come out with filed Remarks as Arial, and yellow. Example: { Remarks } I am using office 2007 with data stored in access as a rich text memo field and merging into a word document. I have tried changing my data source from an actual table in access to an html document, a RTF document, excel spreadsheet, and a docx based off the html document. obviously a lot of people would like to seea rich text merge field so if i can get this to work maybe i can then help others. |
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
Remove Mergefield to keep rich text
thank you for your quick response
i have tried .doc, .docx .rtf and direct Access Table link as source data and the closest format for source data when merged is a docx, the formatting was kept by outputing an Access table to html then saving as the ultimate docx used as the source data. b. what i am actually seeing is no direct formatting: if something is bold it keeps the format of the merge field. the only thing that does come through are bullet points but bullets become numbers; numbers become bullets. But not reliably or consistently. if i could at least have the bullets merge successfully and reliably that would be enough for now of course if Bold, italics and underlines are possible that would be best. i have seen your other post suggesting: "The most straightforward approach is to export each RTF field to a file that has a name that is somehow related to key columns in the record (e.g. if you have a table with an ID field called ID with values 1,2,3,4, export your rtf field to files called rtf1.rtf, rtf2.rtf etc., then use a nested INCLUDETEXT field to include the rtf files: { INCLUDETEXT "c:\\whatver\\rtf{ MERGEFIELD ID }.rtf" }." I have 12 merge fields to deal with and a wide range of records, from 200-800, depending on the job and could not understand how to apply this to my situation. thanks in advance for all help past and present. "Peter Jamieson" wrote: In my experience, the approach of using a word data source and using a REF field instead of a MERGEFIELD does work, at least in simple cases. I would expect .doc, .docx and .rtf to work, but with .htm it depends on the mechanism Word uses to get the data, which can either be its internal text converter (which would probably work) or an OLE DB provider (which would not). However, a. this technique goes back to the early days of Word before MERGEfiELD fields existed, and cannot really be regarded as "supported" b. You don't say anything about what you are actually seeing. Is there any sign that it is working at all? Or perhaps some of the formatting is there, but not enough for it to be a useful technique for you? Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk tighe wrote: I have trying to get this suggestion to work from mvps.org: this suggestion is to keep Rich Text when creating a merge document. Display the field codes and remove word "mergefield" from the field, leaving only the field name. In the example, the content come out with filed Remarks as Arial, and yellow. Example: { Remarks } I am using office 2007 with data stored in access as a rich text memo field and merging into a word document. I have tried changing my data source from an actual table in access to an html document, a RTF document, excel spreadsheet, and a docx based off the html document. obviously a lot of people would like to seea rich text merge field so if i can get this to work maybe i can then help others. |
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
Remove Mergefield to keep rich text
On a recent test Bold, undeline, format did merge but the bullets are still
opposit and unreliable, si i guess that is the only issue left. thanks in advance for all help pasta dn present. |
#5
Posted to microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields
|
|||
|
|||
Remove Mergefield to keep rich text
Yes, what I see is:
- text in the data source that has no direct formatting applied takes on the formatting of the merge field - text that has direct formatting applied will be (roughly speaking) "formatting of the merge field + direct formatting@ - bullets and numbering don't get through. I'm not sue it's worth trying to get any further along that route. I'll reply later about the other suggestion when I've had a look at the Office 2007 aspects of it - may not be until tomorrow. Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk tighe wrote: thank you for your quick response i have tried .doc, .docx .rtf and direct Access Table link as source data and the closest format for source data when merged is a docx, the formatting was kept by outputing an Access table to html then saving as the ultimate docx used as the source data. b. what i am actually seeing is no direct formatting: if something is bold it keeps the format of the merge field. the only thing that does come through are bullet points but bullets become numbers; numbers become bullets. But not reliably or consistently. if i could at least have the bullets merge successfully and reliably that would be enough for now of course if Bold, italics and underlines are possible that would be best. i have seen your other post suggesting: "The most straightforward approach is to export each RTF field to a file that has a name that is somehow related to key columns in the record (e.g. if you have a table with an ID field called ID with values 1,2,3,4, export your rtf field to files called rtf1.rtf, rtf2.rtf etc., then use a nested INCLUDETEXT field to include the rtf files: { INCLUDETEXT "c:\\whatver\\rtf{ MERGEFIELD ID }.rtf" }." I have 12 merge fields to deal with and a wide range of records, from 200-800, depending on the job and could not understand how to apply this to my situation. thanks in advance for all help past and present. "Peter Jamieson" wrote: In my experience, the approach of using a word data source and using a REF field instead of a MERGEFIELD does work, at least in simple cases. I would expect .doc, .docx and .rtf to work, but with .htm it depends on the mechanism Word uses to get the data, which can either be its internal text converter (which would probably work) or an OLE DB provider (which would not). However, a. this technique goes back to the early days of Word before MERGEfiELD fields existed, and cannot really be regarded as "supported" b. You don't say anything about what you are actually seeing. Is there any sign that it is working at all? Or perhaps some of the formatting is there, but not enough for it to be a useful technique for you? Peter Jamieson http://tips.pjmsn.me.uk tighe wrote: I have trying to get this suggestion to work from mvps.org: this suggestion is to keep Rich Text when creating a merge document. Display the field codes and remove word "mergefield" from the field, leaving only the field name. In the example, the content come out with filed Remarks as Arial, and yellow. Example: { Remarks } I am using office 2007 with data stored in access as a rich text memo field and merging into a word document. I have tried changing my data source from an actual table in access to an html document, a RTF document, excel spreadsheet, and a docx based off the html document. obviously a lot of people would like to seea rich text merge field so if i can get this to work maybe i can then help others. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Changing Font / Rich Text Formatting / Merging / Text Fileds | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Copying text from MS-Word to Rich-Text clients | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Remove the leading zero from mergefield . | Mailmerge | |||
Can you remove words from a mergefield using field codes? | Mailmerge | |||
Rich text | Microsoft Word Help |