[Peter Jamieson]

For my part, the problem is that I don't use this feature, so I can't
possibly see the inconsistencies you are seeing, and as I've said, the only
tests I've done suggest that the hidden fields are merged to hiiden text.
However, there is at least one other such inconsistency (I can't remember
the details, but the language for merged texts is either not set or not
processed as some users hope).

However, macropod's post made me wonder whether what you really wanted was
blank spaces where the merged data would be (because although white
characters are not typically visible, they do occupy space). I also wonder
whether this is one of those cases where a particular approach might
/always/ work, even if it isn't quite how you want it. For example
a. create a character style called mystyle, ensuring that it is /not/ hidden
b. apply it to the "M" or MERGEFIELD and use the \*Charformat style as
suggested by macropod
c. merge
d. in the output document, modify the character style so that the text is
hidden or not hidden, as required. It might make sense to set up a macro and
toolbar button to do that.

That all seems to work here OK. What I haven't tried is starting with
"mystyle" set to hidden, and in any case, even if it works OK here, there's
no guarantee that it will work OK at your end. But maybe using a style
rather than direct formatting will make a difference to the overall
behaviour.

Just my 2C-worth. Away for a couple of days now...

Peter Jamieson
"Cindy B" wrote in message
...
Hi Macropod. Thanks for your advice. Everyone is on the right page with
the
problem.

I did test it and it does merge if the text is not set as hidden text.

As far as changing the color - I did think of that and in some cases, it
works great but in this case, the merge letter needs to be printed on
beige/linen colored letterhead and not having any luck matching the text
color just right.

I've done hundreds of merges like this and sometimes it works and
sometimes
it doesn't. I haven't discovered any rhyme or reason for the issue.
I've
searched for known bugs or issues with this but haven't found any. I've
also
searched for settings that could cause the problem and haven't found
anything
there either. Has anyone else had inconsistant results when merging using
Word 2002 or newer?

"macropod" wrote:

Hi Cindy,

Try UNhiding the text, to confirm that it merges.

If that works, select the mergefield you want to hide, but DON'T format
it as hidden. Instead:
.. press Shift-F9 to expose the field code, which will look something
like {MERGEFIELD Data}
.. formatted the font colour for 'M' in 'MERGEFIELD' as the same colour
as the background (eg white)
.. add '\* Charformat' to the field (i.e. {MERGEFIELD Data \* Charformat}
.. delete '\* Mergeformat' if it's there
.. press F9 to update the field.
Now run your mailmerge and everything should be OK. The text will be in
your merged output, but won't be visible or print because
it's the same colour as the background. If you need to see it, simply
change its colour.

Cheers

--
macropod
[MVP - Microsoft Word]


"Cindy B" wrote in message
...
| No, the text is not merged at all.
|
| "Peter Jamieson" wrote:
|
| However, once I merge, the hidden text is completely
| ignored.
|
| Can we assume that you mean that the hidden attribute is ignored and
so the
| text is visible? Please spell it out if that's not right.
|
| It seems OK here, but
| a. which version of Word (I'm using 2003)?
| b. how are you hiding the MERGEFIELD fields (and are you hiding
other types
| of field) ?
| c. presumably you are outputting to a new document, but what type of
merge
| are you performing (Letters, Directory,...) ?
|
| Peter Jamieson
| "Cindy B" wrote in message
| ...
| I have several merge fields set as hidden text because I need to be
able to
| see them on the screen but not print once I've completed my merge -
seems
| reasonable right? However, once I merge, the hidden text is
completely
| ignored. Has anyone encountered this and more importantly found a
| resolution?
|
|
|