[Dave E]

Add some text to a page.

Below the text, create a table and configure the first row to repeat across
pages.

Add a few rows to the table.

Now go back and add enough text to the page (above the table) that every
body row in the table has wrapped to the next page.

The result is one row of the table (just the heading) on the first page,
then that same heading row at the top of the next page, followed by the
remainder of the table.

If the heading row is set to repeat AND it is the only row that can fit on a
page, then the whole dang table should wrap to the next page and not leave
the poor heading stranded at the top of the previous page.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...ic.word.tables

[PamC via OfficeKB.com]

To avoid this situation, apply 'keep with next' to the first row of the table.



The result is one row of the table (just the heading) on the first page,
then that same heading row at the top of the next page, followed by the
remainder of the table.

If the heading row is set to repeat AND it is the only row that can fit on a
page, then the whole dang table should wrap to the next page and not leave
the poor heading stranded at the top of the previous page.

--
Message posted via http://www.officekb.com

[Dave E[_2_]]

Thanks Pam - I played with a couple of work-arounds and that was one that
worked for me. It still seems weird to have to do that though.

I guess I should be thankful, though, that this is one of the few things
that Word 2007 broke (upgrading from Word 2003). At least this is one of the
few bugs I've noticed in the month since I've upgraded.

Can you say "no-brainer" though? If you define that row as the header, then
dontcha think Word should keep it with the table that it's, um, heading?

"PamC via OfficeKB.com" wrote:

To avoid this situation, apply 'keep with next' to the first row of the table.

[macropod[_2_]]

Hi Dave,

I guess I should be thankful, though, that this is one of the few things
that Word 2007 broke (upgrading from Word 2003).

The same behaviour has existed since at least Word 2000 ...

--
Cheers
macropod
[Microsoft MVP - Word]


"Dave E" wrote in message ...
Thanks Pam - I played with a couple of work-arounds and that was one that
worked for me. It still seems weird to have to do that though.

I guess I should be thankful, though, that this is one of the few things
that Word 2007 broke (upgrading from Word 2003). At least this is one of the
few bugs I've noticed in the month since I've upgraded.

Can you say "no-brainer" though? If you define that row as the header, then
dontcha think Word should keep it with the table that it's, um, heading?

"PamC via OfficeKB.com" wrote:

To avoid this situation, apply 'keep with next' to the first row of the table.

[Dave E[_2_]]

Hmmm. I guess today was my lucky day then, because I've made it this far
without having a table break that way.

Thanks for the replies though. I appreciate it.

- Dave

"macropod" wrote:

Hi Dave,

I guess I should be thankful, though, that this is one of the few things
that Word 2007 broke (upgrading from Word 2003).

The same behaviour has existed since at least Word 2000 ...

--
Cheers
macropod
[Microsoft MVP - Word]


"Dave E" wrote in message ...
Thanks Pam - I played with a couple of work-arounds and that was one that
worked for me. It still seems weird to have to do that though.

I guess I should be thankful, though, that this is one of the few things
that Word 2007 broke (upgrading from Word 2003). At least this is one of the
few bugs I've noticed in the month since I've upgraded.

Can you say "no-brainer" though? If you define that row as the header, then
dontcha think Word should keep it with the table that it's, um, heading?

"PamC via OfficeKB.com" wrote:

To avoid this situation, apply 'keep with next' to the first row of the table.