Fair enough, though there's a link to a cautionary tale wrt insert pages at
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/Numbering/ChapterNumber.htm
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Joshua Kreitzer" wrote in message
...
This was for a book with looseleaf updates. In prior revisions, the
goal had been to change only those pages that needed to be changed due
to new content.
It's true that new footnotes could have been inserted with automatic
renumbering. However, that would have effectively required the
looseleaf update to have every succeeding page in the chapter
reprinted in order to take account the changes in footnote numbering.
By inserting decimal-numbered footnotes, the content that wasn't being
changed in a given update would not need to be reprinted for that
update.
Now, however, a completely revised edition is being prepared and so
the footnotes are to be cleaned up to use consecutive whole numbers.
Joshua Kreitzer
On Apr 7, 11:06 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Since the later footnotes would have renumbered themselves automatically
when you inserted new ones, I don't think "avoid having to renumber all
the
later notes" is a very good rationale; now if you wanted to keep the
footnote numbers the same to avoid confusion, I can understand that
argument.
"Joshua Kreitzer" wrote in message
...
The reason the footnotes were numbered this way is that this is the
manuscript of a book which has gone through several revisions. In each
revision, some more text was added, which required the addition of
decimal-numbered footnotes between the existing footnotes to avoid
having to renumber all the later notes. However, at this time it is
desired to clean up the numbering and just have whole-numbered
footnotes.