[Hilary Ostrov]

Using 2003 and am wondering if there is some way of persuading Word
not to delete the section break between TOC and first heading.

Because TOC is 2 pages, I'm using different first page for that
section only. Everytime I update TOC - because it's deleting the
section break after TOC - style ref to heading 1 in next section gets
picked up in TOC [and footers (all linked to previous) get wiped out
completely.] It's *most* irritating!

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

hro
hro
--
myssiwyg* ... making your support systems improve what you get!
http://www.myssiwyg.ca/

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Alt+F9 to display the TOC field code and make sure the section break is not
inside the field itself. It's generally a good idea to have at least one
empty paragraph (paragraph mark *outside* the field braces) before adding
any other text (including a page or section break) below a TOC because that
field has a lamentable tendency to scorp up anything after it.

--
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.

"Hilary Ostrov" wrote in message
...
Using 2003 and am wondering if there is some way of persuading Word
not to delete the section break between TOC and first heading.

Because TOC is 2 pages, I'm using different first page for that
section only. Everytime I update TOC - because it's deleting the
section break after TOC - style ref to heading 1 in next section gets
picked up in TOC [and footers (all linked to previous) get wiped out
completely.] It's *most* irritating!

Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

hro
hro
--
myssiwyg* ... making your support systems improve what you get!
http://www.myssiwyg.ca/

[Hilary Ostrov]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:57:41 -0600, in
, "Suzanne S. Barnhill"
wrote:

Alt+F9 to display the TOC field code and make sure the section break is not
inside the field itself. It's generally a good idea to have at least one
empty paragraph (paragraph mark *outside* the field braces) before adding
any other text (including a page or section break) below a TOC because that
field has a lamentable tendency to scorp up anything after it.

Thanks, Suzanne. That certainly explains the problem (and how to get
around it!) Actually, I did have empty para's outside the TOC but it
was still doing really ugly things on update TOC (like not only wiping
out those empty para's but also (after I'd added cover page) replacing
the sb=next page on cover page with sb=continuous.

Speaking of cover pages and TOC's, btw, is there someway of changing
{ NUMPAGES } to { NUMPAGES - 1 } (or however many I wanted to reduce
it by) - other than replacing { NUMPAGES } with the number I want?! I
tried a few ways, but it didn't seem to like my syntax.

And another "aggrannoyance" I noticed while working on this particular
105 page doc, was that if I included a link to another heading in same
doc (i.e. to one of the Appendices included in TOC) clicking link
would always go to top of TOC. I did find a workaround to prevent
this (marked first line of text on Appendices as heading 4, not
included in TOC), but I wouldn't have expected to have to do this!

hro
--
myssiwyg* ... making your support systems improve what you get!
http://www.myssiwyg.ca/

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

You can use { = { NUMPAGES } - 1 } to get the desired result. Alternatively,
if you have only one section break in the document, you can use the
SECTIONPAGES field instead.

A hyperlink to a specific heading should go to that heading, not to the TOC
at all, so I'm not sure what's going on there. If you're trying to link to
an *entry* in the TOC, then this will be either deleted when you update the
TOC field or applied to the entire field (and there are easier ways to go to
the TOC). Can you explain this problem a little more clearly?

--
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.

"Hilary Ostrov" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:57:41 -0600, in
, "Suzanne S. Barnhill"
wrote:

Alt+F9 to display the TOC field code and make sure the section break is
not
inside the field itself. It's generally a good idea to have at least one
empty paragraph (paragraph mark *outside* the field braces) before adding
any other text (including a page or section break) below a TOC because
that
field has a lamentable tendency to scorp up anything after it.

Thanks, Suzanne. That certainly explains the problem (and how to get
around it!) Actually, I did have empty para's outside the TOC but it
was still doing really ugly things on update TOC (like not only wiping
out those empty para's but also (after I'd added cover page) replacing
the sb=next page on cover page with sb=continuous.

Speaking of cover pages and TOC's, btw, is there someway of changing
{ NUMPAGES } to { NUMPAGES - 1 } (or however many I wanted to reduce
it by) - other than replacing { NUMPAGES } with the number I want?! I
tried a few ways, but it didn't seem to like my syntax.

And another "aggrannoyance" I noticed while working on this particular
105 page doc, was that if I included a link to another heading in same
doc (i.e. to one of the Appendices included in TOC) clicking link
would always go to top of TOC. I did find a workaround to prevent
this (marked first line of text on Appendices as heading 4, not
included in TOC), but I wouldn't have expected to have to do this!

hro
--
myssiwyg* ... making your support systems improve what you get!
http://www.myssiwyg.ca/

[Hilary Ostrov]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:14:56 -0600, in
, "Suzanne S. Barnhill"
wrote:

You can use { = { NUMPAGES } - 1 } to get the desired result. Alternatively,
if you have only one section break in the document, you can use the
SECTIONPAGES field instead.

Ah - Thanks! Thought I'd tried that one, but I'll try it again
No, this doc has about 12 sections (wanted add'l styleref's in some
headers, not in others!)

A hyperlink to a specific heading should go to that heading, not to the TOC

That's what I thought! It was going to the specific heading until I
inserted the TOC to see what it looked like.

at all, so I'm not sure what's going on there. If you're trying to link to
an *entry* in the TOC, then this will be either deleted when you update the
TOC field or applied to the entire field (and there are easier ways to go to
the TOC). Can you explain this problem a little more clearly?

Hmmm... well, for example, I have some text that says "Please see 7.12
Appendix #12." with "7.12 Appendix #12" hyperlinked to "7.12 Appendix
#12 - blah blah blah" [formatted as Heading 1, so it will get picked
up in the TOC, which it does]

But if I clicked on any of those hyperlinks, it goes to the *top* of
the TOC i.e. not even to the item in the TOC, hence my need for a
workaround.

[In this instance, btw, I was compiling a doc that was in response to
a gov't agency RFP - and the formatting in *their* specs doc was an
absolute dog's breakfast - but it had to be included in the proposal -
verbatim, and I didn't have time to clear their formatting for the
entire doc (and properly apply styles to make it look the same as
theirs) only for the sections requiring responses ... but they didn't
allow enough room for more than one line in any of the responses -
so I ended up with 25 appendices (and then some!) with each appendix
having a reference back to their [oddball] numbering!

It could be that there was something in their formatting in the parts
I didn't touch (they used ¶'s for spacing and hard page breaks etc. -
and sometimes they'd use autonumbers mixed with inserted numbers e.g.
1, 2 and 3 would be autonumbered, 4 wouldn't then 5,6 might be then 7
wouldn't etc). Needless to say it was ugly - thank goodness for the
"use destination/keep source formatting" options on paste!]

hro
--
myssiwyg* ... making your support systems improve what you get!
http://www.myssiwyg.ca/

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Yeah, I'd say "dog's breakfast" about covers it. If they complain that it
doesn't work right, offer to format it correctly for extra money (or given
extra time).

--
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.

"Hilary Ostrov" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:14:56 -0600, in
, "Suzanne S. Barnhill"
wrote:

You can use { = { NUMPAGES } - 1 } to get the desired result.
Alternatively,
if you have only one section break in the document, you can use the
SECTIONPAGES field instead.

Ah - Thanks! Thought I'd tried that one, but I'll try it again
No, this doc has about 12 sections (wanted add'l styleref's in some
headers, not in others!)

A hyperlink to a specific heading should go to that heading, not to the
TOC

That's what I thought! It was going to the specific heading until I
inserted the TOC to see what it looked like.

at all, so I'm not sure what's going on there. If you're trying to link
to
an *entry* in the TOC, then this will be either deleted when you update
the
TOC field or applied to the entire field (and there are easier ways to go
to
the TOC). Can you explain this problem a little more clearly?

Hmmm... well, for example, I have some text that says "Please see 7.12
Appendix #12." with "7.12 Appendix #12" hyperlinked to "7.12 Appendix
#12 - blah blah blah" [formatted as Heading 1, so it will get picked
up in the TOC, which it does]

But if I clicked on any of those hyperlinks, it goes to the *top* of
the TOC i.e. not even to the item in the TOC, hence my need for a
workaround.

[In this instance, btw, I was compiling a doc that was in response to
a gov't agency RFP - and the formatting in *their* specs doc was an
absolute dog's breakfast - but it had to be included in the proposal -
verbatim, and I didn't have time to clear their formatting for the
entire doc (and properly apply styles to make it look the same as
theirs) only for the sections requiring responses ... but they didn't
allow enough room for more than one line in any of the responses -
so I ended up with 25 appendices (and then some!) with each appendix
having a reference back to their [oddball] numbering!

It could be that there was something in their formatting in the parts
I didn't touch (they used ¶'s for spacing and hard page breaks etc. -
and sometimes they'd use autonumbers mixed with inserted numbers e.g.
1, 2 and 3 would be autonumbered, 4 wouldn't then 5,6 might be then 7
wouldn't etc). Needless to say it was ugly - thank goodness for the
"use destination/keep source formatting" options on paste!]

hro
--
myssiwyg* ... making your support systems improve what you get!
http://www.myssiwyg.ca/