Hi all,

Word 2002 replaced the old Word 2000 'Optimize for Word 97' option with
the new 'Disable Features Introduced After' option, which brought some
issues I documented nearly two years ago in the following post:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...57a3e1fc8a3dcd

(Search dejanews under 'Odd Behavior in Word XP Involving Disable
Features' if above link misbehaves. Or try my name... My original
post was March 28, 2003)

Basically, what I found was that under Word 2002 the Disable Features
checkbox would spring to checked during document saves, both
interactively (intermittently) and under VBA/automation (consistently).
This would cause documents with Word 2000 features, such as nested
tables, to be downgraded to Word 97 format even though the user had
taken no action to request or configure that. There were also some odd
interactions between the old .OptimizeForWord97 and new
..DisableFeatures document properties. This is just the nutshell - the
cite above has all the details.

About a year ago MS acknowledged the problem in kb article:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;832349

though that cite still lists the problem as unresolved.

Now fast forward: Having just (belatedly) acquired Word 2003 I'm
seeing that the issue may have been fixed or at least papered over - in
fact, I'm having trouble programmatically forcing documents down to
Word 97 features (not something I'm at all wanting to do btw ,
leading me to suspect/hope that MS may have taken some emergency or
interim action in Word 2003 or it's SP's. I'm on 11.5604.5606 w/no
SP's listed.

Does anyone on the group have personal knowledge of the bug and it's
current status, and whether that status changed between Word 2002 and
2003 versions? Anyone had trouble with Word 2003 nuking Word 2000+
features such as nested tables, especially in COM automated document
management applications?

TIA,
David McBride

G'day ,

Oh dude. Yeah - I hear you, I sympathise with ya, there is little I
can do for ya :-)

Word 2003 does a pre-load pass on the documents. Unfortunately there
is NO USER CONTROL OVER THIS - our gripe with 90% of provided
functions yeah? So sorry - its a bitch, but very little we can do.
However, this sorta is a good thing as it 'corrects' or 'flags' many
erros on the way in which 'we' would not otherwise notice.

Steve Hudson - Word Heretic

steve from wordheretic.com (Email replies require payment)
Without prejudice


reckoned:

Hi all,

Word 2002 replaced the old Word 2000 'Optimize for Word 97' option with
the new 'Disable Features Introduced After' option, which brought some
issues I documented nearly two years ago in the following post:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...57a3e1fc8a3dcd

(Search dejanews under 'Odd Behavior in Word XP Involving Disable
Features' if above link misbehaves. Or try my name... My original
post was March 28, 2003)

Basically, what I found was that under Word 2002 the Disable Features
checkbox would spring to checked during document saves, both
interactively (intermittently) and under VBA/automation (consistently).
This would cause documents with Word 2000 features, such as nested
tables, to be downgraded to Word 97 format even though the user had
taken no action to request or configure that. There were also some odd
interactions between the old .OptimizeForWord97 and new
.DisableFeatures document properties. This is just the nutshell - the
cite above has all the details.

About a year ago MS acknowledged the problem in kb article:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;832349

though that cite still lists the problem as unresolved.

Now fast forward: Having just (belatedly) acquired Word 2003 I'm
seeing that the issue may have been fixed or at least papered over - in
fact, I'm having trouble programmatically forcing documents down to
Word 97 features (not something I'm at all wanting to do btw ,
leading me to suspect/hope that MS may have taken some emergency or
interim action in Word 2003 or it's SP's. I'm on 11.5604.5606 w/no
SP's listed.

Does anyone on the group have personal knowledge of the bug and it's
current status, and whether that status changed between Word 2002 and
2003 versions? Anyone had trouble with Word 2003 nuking Word 2000+
features such as nested tables, especially in COM automated document
management applications?

TIA,
David McBride

Steve,

Gotta admit I'm a bit confused - did you read my post, or this a sort
of automated reply?

My post deals with Word incorrectly saving documents with the older
Word 97 feature set - nuking post-97 features such as nested tables. I
demo the bug with new documents being saved for the first time; there's
no opening of documents where a 'pre-load pass' would come into play.
I experienced the bug first under Word 2000, and am trying to verify
that the bug has different manifestations under Word 2003.

Was it this subject that your reply was referencing?
Thanks,
David McBride

G'day ,

yes

Steve Hudson - Word Heretic

steve from wordheretic.com (Email replies require payment)
Without prejudice


reckoned:

Steve,

Gotta admit I'm a bit confused - did you read my post, or this a sort
of automated reply?

My post deals with Word incorrectly saving documents with the older
Word 97 feature set - nuking post-97 features such as nested tables. I
demo the bug with new documents being saved for the first time; there's
no opening of documents where a 'pre-load pass' would come into play.
I experienced the bug first under Word 2000, and am trying to verify
that the bug has different manifestations under Word 2003.

Was it this subject that your reply was referencing?
Thanks,
David McBride

G'day ,

Word 2003 makes more dramatic changes to the underlying BFF than the
other versions. It aggressively tries to order the document properly.
This massively helps reduce document corruption.

All versions of Word have compatibility settings for previous
versions. (Tools Options) This also causes some aggressive
restructuring of the file. These details are NOT readily provided by
Microsoft, thus I cannot give you specific information, only this
general information.

That is why I sympathize with your predicament - I often (monthly
minimum) find myself in the same bind on similar issues. Essentially,
there is an awful lot goes on behind the scenes that us more technical
users want to know more about so we can attempt to control out
productions. This info is not readily available.

Steve Hudson - Word Heretic

steve from wordheretic.com (Email replies require payment)
Without prejudice


reckoned:

Steve,

Gotta admit I'm a bit confused - did you read my post, or this a sort
of automated reply?

My post deals with Word incorrectly saving documents with the older
Word 97 feature set - nuking post-97 features such as nested tables. I
demo the bug with new documents being saved for the first time; there's
no opening of documents where a 'pre-load pass' would come into play.
I experienced the bug first under Word 2000, and am trying to verify
that the bug has different manifestations under Word 2003.

Was it this subject that your reply was referencing?
Thanks,
David McBride

Essentially,
there is an awful lot goes on behind the scenes that us more
technical
users want to know more about so we can attempt to control out
productions. This info is not readily available.

Amen to that...

What's interesting about my issue is just how damn simple it should be
to fix. Basically, somewhere in the Tools | Options code someone made
a dumb error, probably in coordinating the new 'downgrade to version'
options and properties with the older but similar controls that were
Word97-specific. Two years have gone by, and another user who's been
impacted to no end by this bug says MS told him that the underlying
code is such a mess that it probably won't be fixed until whatever
replaces Office 2003. Jeez.

I do think I see some change though - it appears that MS patched it
just a bit to force saves to happen with features enabled. In fact,
with Word 2003 the bug appears to be the reverse of it's Word 2000
manifestation - I can't get Word to save with features disabled even by
setting the appropriate properties. This would be a classic sign of a
stopgap kluge. I'm just hoping, and hoping to verify, that indeed it's
that, and not some difference in testbed environments that's giving me
misleading results.

Arghhh,
David McBride

In fact, with Word 2003 the bug appears to be the
reverse of it's Word 2000 manifestation

Correcting myself - above should read 'it's Word 2002 manifestation'
Word 2000 worked perfect in this regard.

David McBride

G'day ,

Just had a thought reading your reply. From Word 2k on, Word is
forward compatible. That is, if it reads a BFF tag it doesn't
understand, it keeps it intact to travel with the document, but
ignores it otherwise. This means you should be able to read Word 2003
native documents in Word2k. It is possibly this 'feature' has given
rise to the downgrade scenario presented.

Steve Hudson - Word Heretic

steve from wordheretic.com (Email replies require payment)
Without prejudice


reckoned:

Essentially,
there is an awful lot goes on behind the scenes that us more
technical
users want to know more about so we can attempt to control out
productions. This info is not readily available.

Amen to that...

What's interesting about my issue is just how damn simple it should be
to fix. Basically, somewhere in the Tools | Options code someone made
a dumb error, probably in coordinating the new 'downgrade to version'
options and properties with the older but similar controls that were
Word97-specific. Two years have gone by, and another user who's been
impacted to no end by this bug says MS told him that the underlying
code is such a mess that it probably won't be fixed until whatever
replaces Office 2003. Jeez.

I do think I see some change though - it appears that MS patched it
just a bit to force saves to happen with features enabled. In fact,
with Word 2003 the bug appears to be the reverse of it's Word 2000
manifestation - I can't get Word to save with features disabled even by
setting the appropriate properties. This would be a classic sign of a
stopgap kluge. I'm just hoping, and hoping to verify, that indeed it's
that, and not some difference in testbed environments that's giving me
misleading results.

Arghhh,
David McBride