[LovableNoobie]

I want to be able to cite a single footnote several times, but each time I
put a footnote in Word it makes a new one. Is it possible to make Word
understand that I want to refer to an existing footnote, not make a new one?
For example, if I have a list of items and I want to make a footnote comment
that refers to some of those items I should be able to put the comment once
and then put the same note reference mark after each subsequent item to which
the comment applies.

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Insert | Reference | Cross-reference to Footnote Number (formatted). But it
sounds as if what you need is a references list rather than footnotes; see
http://daiya.mvps.org/biblio.htm#AlphaEndnotes

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"LovableNoobie" wrote in message
...
I want to be able to cite a single footnote several times, but each time I
put a footnote in Word it makes a new one. Is it possible to make Word
understand that I want to refer to an existing footnote, not make a new
one?
For example, if I have a list of items and I want to make a footnote
comment
that refers to some of those items I should be able to put the comment
once
and then put the same note reference mark after each subsequent item to
which
the comment applies.

[grammatim[_2_]]

Why do you say that? What Lovable describes is not uncommon. (Though
probably more common with table footnotes than with general ones --
does 2007 provide for table footnotes, BTW? I got used to a workaround
of putting a numbered paragraph in the bottom row with cells merged,
and inserting a cross reference to its number (actually a letter, of
course).)

On Jul 13, 11:41 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Insert | Reference | Cross-reference to Footnote Number (formatted). But it
sounds as if what you need is a references list rather than footnotes; seehttp://daiya.mvps.org/biblio.htm#AlphaEndnotes

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"LovableNoobie" wrote in message

...

I want to be able to cite a single footnote several times, but each time I
put a footnote in Word it makes a new one. Is it possible to make Word
understand that I want to refer to an existing footnote, not make a new
one?
For example, if I have a list of items and I want to make a footnote
comment
that refers to some of those items I should be able to put the comment
once
and then put the same note reference mark after each subsequent item to
which
the comment applies.

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Reading too quickly, I read Lovable's "list of items" as describing a
reference list.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"grammatim" wrote in message
...
Why do you say that? What Lovable describes is not uncommon. (Though
probably more common with table footnotes than with general ones --
does 2007 provide for table footnotes, BTW? I got used to a workaround
of putting a numbered paragraph in the bottom row with cells merged,
and inserting a cross reference to its number (actually a letter, of
course).)

On Jul 13, 11:41 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Insert | Reference | Cross-reference to Footnote Number (formatted). But
it
sounds as if what you need is a references list rather than footnotes;
seehttp://daiya.mvps.org/biblio.htm#AlphaEndnotes

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"LovableNoobie" wrote in
message

...

I want to be able to cite a single footnote several times, but each time
I
put a footnote in Word it makes a new one. Is it possible to make Word
understand that I want to refer to an existing footnote, not make a new
one?
For example, if I have a list of items and I want to make a footnote
comment
that refers to some of those items I should be able to put the comment
once
and then put the same note reference mark after each subsequent item to
which
the comment applies.

[grammatim[_2_]]

Any good news on table footnotes? FrameMaker wins again!

On Jul 14, 9:13 am, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Reading too quickly, I read Lovable's "list of items" as describing a
reference list.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"grammatim" wrote in message

...

Why do you say that? What Lovable describes is not uncommon. (Though
probably more common with table footnotes than with general ones --
does 2007 provide for table footnotes, BTW? I got used to a workaround
of putting a numbered paragraph in the bottom row with cells merged,
and inserting a cross reference to its number (actually a letter, of
course).)

On Jul 13, 11:41 pm, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:
Insert | Reference | Cross-reference to Footnote Number (formatted). But
it
sounds as if what you need is a references list rather than footnotes;
seehttp://daiya.mvps.org/biblio.htm#AlphaEndnotes

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"LovableNoobie" wrote in
message

...

I want to be able to cite a single footnote several times, but each time
I
put a footnote in Word it makes a new one. Is it possible to make Word
understand that I want to refer to an existing footnote, not make a new
one?
For example, if I have a list of items and I want to make a footnote
comment
that refers to some of those items I should be able to put the comment
once
and then put the same note reference mark after each subsequent item to
which
the comment applies.

[Robert M. Franz (RMF)]

Hello grammatim

grammatim wrote:
Any good news on table footnotes? FrameMaker wins again!

there is not much in Frame I wish Word could do (as well). In any case,
_table footnotes_ has never been of any concern to me (and I've
paginated a lot of scientific papers in my time). Who needs tf anyway
....? And even if, SEQ fields are setup quickly enough ...

2cents
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MSFT |
\ / | MVP | Scientific Reports
X Against HTML | for | with Word?
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word | http://www.masteringword.eu/

[grammatim[_2_]]

I guess you've also never had to do elaborate cross references, fancy
indexes (perhaps with custom sort orders),* or made a picture stay put
on a page while text flows around it ...

For Philip Baldi's *Foundations of Latin*, there were about 20
indexes, including one for each Indo-European language that was cited,
and several of them use alphabetical orders different from that of
English.

I learned Chicago table formatting when I was a manuscript editor at
Astrophysical Journal, and I don't think an astrophysicist is
constitutionally able to prepare a table that doesn't have footnotes
in it.

On Jul 14, 12:51 pm, "Robert M. Franz (RMF)"
wrote:
Hello grammatim

grammatim wrote:
Any good news on table footnotes? FrameMaker wins again!

there is not much in Frame I wish Word could do (as well). In any case,
_table footnotes_ has never been of any concern to me (and I've
paginated a lot of scientific papers in my time). Who needs tf anyway
...? And even if, SEQ fields are setup quickly enough ...

[Robert M. Franz (RMF)]

grammatim wrote:
I guess you've also never had to do elaborate cross references, fancy

define "elaborate" in this context ...


indexes (perhaps with custom sort orders),* or made a picture stay put
on a page while text flows around it ...

Well, even though Word's gotten better in this regard, _that's_ really
the thing that it will probably never be able to do as well as Frame.
Different model entirely.


For Philip Baldi's *Foundations of Latin*, there were about 20
indexes, including one for each Indo-European language that was cited,
and several of them use alphabetical orders different from that of
English.

Indexing is a pain even with the best tools at hand. I don't think
there's much in Word that lets you fiddle with the sort order, so, in
essence, you unlink the Index field and automate the ordering.


I learned Chicago table formatting when I was a manuscript editor at
Astrophysical Journal, and I don't think an astrophysicist is
constitutionally able to prepare a table that doesn't have footnotes
in it.

:-)

Granted, I may have worked more in the engineering and economics world,
but I've supported my share of arts papers as well. But again, table
footnotes makes two AutoTexts (one for the starting field, and one for
all the others). It's not that you can't do it in Word, there's just not
much support from scratch.

Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MSFT |
\ / | MVP | Scientific Reports
X Against HTML | for | with Word?
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word | http://www.masteringword.eu/

[grammatim[_2_]]

On Jul 15, 7:51 am, "Robert M. Franz (RMF)"
wrote:
grammatim wrote:
I guess you've also never had to do elaborate cross references, fancy

define "elaborate" in this context ...

Ok, not even elaborate! For instance, I've just been doing a book
where the table title style is italic for "Table 4.1" and roman for
the text of the title. But a reference to the table by number is to be
roman -- and Word won't allow that, without special attention each
time a cross reference is inserted. And I can't do "see table 4.1 on
p. 206" without entering two separate references!

indexes (perhaps with custom sort orders),* or made a picture stay put
on a page while text flows around it ...

Well, even though Word's gotten better in this regard, _that's_ really
the thing that it will probably never be able to do as well as Frame.
Different model entirely.

For my new edition I have to switch to InDesign (because Adobe will
not give Unicode ability to FrameMaker), so I've read Mastering
InDesign CS3 by Pariah S. Burke (CS2 had no cross referencing ability
at all), and he is quite frank about the relationship with FrameMaker:
they've now imitated some of its capabilities -- the use of anchored
graphics is the big one in CS3 -- but by no means all. Their principal
interest has been competing with their own PageMaker (which InDesign
replaces) and QuarkXpress, which has never been, or been intended, for
book work. There's an InDesign plug-in available for E99 that can do
all sorts of cross reference things -- Burke notes that a great
strength of InDesign is its plug-in architecture, so that modules
don't interfere with each other, and so that you can turn off stuff
you don't use (thus I won't need any of its color capabilities) so as
to streamline its memory use and speed (and presumably reliability,
though he doesn't mention how crash-prone it may be).

For Philip Baldi's *Foundations of Latin*, there were about 20
indexes, including one for each Indo-European language that was cited,
and several of them use alphabetical orders different from that of
English.

Indexing is a pain even with the best tools at hand. I don't think
there's much in Word that lets you fiddle with the sort order, so, in
essence, you unlink the Index field and automate the ordering.

I learned Chicago table formatting when I was a manuscript editor at
Astrophysical Journal, and I don't think an astrophysicist is
constitutionally able to prepare a table that doesn't have footnotes
in it.

:-)

Granted, I may have worked more in the engineering and economics world,
but I've supported my share of arts papers as well. But again, table
footnotes makes two AutoTexts (one for the starting field, and one for
all the others). It's not that you can't do it in Word, there's just not
much support from scratch.

Likewise for endnotes in FrameMaker ... and, incredibly, they never
did learn that long footnotes need to split onto the next page! You
have to do it by chopping off the right number of lines from the
bottom and creating a new text frame on the next page (and pushing the
new page's own footnotes down out of the way!).

[Robert M. Franz (RMF)]

grammatim wrote:
Ok, not even elaborate! For instance, I've just been doing a book
where the table title style is italic for "Table 4.1" and roman for
the text of the title. But a reference to the table by number is to be
roman -- and Word won't allow that, without special attention each
time a cross reference is inserted. And I can't do "see table 4.1 on
p. 206" without entering two separate references!

hmm, a field switch added to the REF field should do here. Personally,
I'd probably insert an AutoText manually into the field, but I'm sure
this could be automated more nicely.


For my new edition I have to switch to InDesign (because Adobe will
not give Unicode ability to FrameMaker),

That's the real bummer with Frame: it's pretty much dead since oh so
many years. It's stable, but international support, ah well ...

Interesting to see what others are using, thanks. Let's not get too much
astray here, or the others will beat me up ... ;-)

Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MSFT |
\ / | MVP | Scientific Reports
X Against HTML | for | with Word?
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word | http://www.masteringword.eu/