[meow9th]

Using Word 2003.

In addition to having the switch \b for field TOC, there should be a switch
of similar functionality for sections instead of bookmarked sections. This
saves on having to create redundant "sections" (one with bookmarks, one with
section breaks) in order to achieve the desired effect of multiple TOCs, one
for each "section" (chapter in a book, for example).

----------------
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...ord.pagelayout

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I definitely like this idea. In other words, you're saying that if you've
already got section breaks between chapters, you could just add a switch to
the TOC field to make it cover only Section 2, say, or, if there were more
than one section in a chapter, only Sections 2-4. Definitely useful.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"meow9th" wrote in message
...
Using Word 2003.

In addition to having the switch \b for field TOC, there should be a
switch
of similar functionality for sections instead of bookmarked sections. This
saves on having to create redundant "sections" (one with bookmarks, one
with
section breaks) in order to achieve the desired effect of multiple TOCs,
one
for each "section" (chapter in a book, for example).

----------------
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...ord.pagelayout

[John Nurick]

That's an attractive idea, but I feel it would be useless in practice.
But it's not hard to write a macro that automatically bookmarks a
specified section (or range of sections) and creates a TOC field for
that bookmark.

Here's why I think that a "section" switch in the TOC field wouldn't be
worth the effort.

Yes, it would let you create a TOC for (let's say) Section 4 (which
contains Chapter 1), Section 5 (Chapter 2), Section 6 (Chapter 3) and so
on. But if you then need to re-order the chapters, moving (let's say)
Chapter 9 in front of Chapter 7, you end up with a new Chapter 7 that
contains a TOC field pointing at Section 12, which now contains what
used to be Chapter 8 and has a TOC field pointing at Section 11. And so
on.

Likewise if you have to include a wide table in Chapter 4 (Section 7),
this means inserting two section breaks to switch to and from landscape
view. So Chapter 4 is now Sections 7 to 9, and its TOC field must be
modified accordingly. All subsequent TOCs must be adjusted too.

IMHO keeping track of all this would be *much* more work than just
setting up a few bookmarks. The only way round it that I can see would
be if the field codes could use some kind of "relative reference" that
Word would track automatically (in much the same way that Excel adjusts
references in formulas when you insert, delete or move cells) - which I
suspect would need major work on Word's internals.



On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 14:51:02 -0700, meow9th
wrote:

Using Word 2003.

In addition to having the switch \b for field TOC, there should be a switch
of similar functionality for sections instead of bookmarked sections. This
saves on having to create redundant "sections" (one with bookmarks, one with
section breaks) in order to achieve the desired effect of multiple TOCs, one
for each "section" (chapter in a book, for example).

--
John Nurick [Microsoft Access MVP]

Please respond in the newgroup and not by email.

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

In your scenario, I agree that the switch would be problematic, but I
personally would not be inserting these TOCs until editing was complete.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"John Nurick" wrote in message
...
That's an attractive idea, but I feel it would be useless in practice.
But it's not hard to write a macro that automatically bookmarks a
specified section (or range of sections) and creates a TOC field for
that bookmark.

Here's why I think that a "section" switch in the TOC field wouldn't be
worth the effort.

Yes, it would let you create a TOC for (let's say) Section 4 (which
contains Chapter 1), Section 5 (Chapter 2), Section 6 (Chapter 3) and so
on. But if you then need to re-order the chapters, moving (let's say)
Chapter 9 in front of Chapter 7, you end up with a new Chapter 7 that
contains a TOC field pointing at Section 12, which now contains what
used to be Chapter 8 and has a TOC field pointing at Section 11. And so
on.

Likewise if you have to include a wide table in Chapter 4 (Section 7),
this means inserting two section breaks to switch to and from landscape
view. So Chapter 4 is now Sections 7 to 9, and its TOC field must be
modified accordingly. All subsequent TOCs must be adjusted too.

IMHO keeping track of all this would be *much* more work than just
setting up a few bookmarks. The only way round it that I can see would
be if the field codes could use some kind of "relative reference" that
Word would track automatically (in much the same way that Excel adjusts
references in formulas when you insert, delete or move cells) - which I
suspect would need major work on Word's internals.



On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 14:51:02 -0700, meow9th
wrote:

Using Word 2003.

In addition to having the switch \b for field TOC, there should be a
switch
of similar functionality for sections instead of bookmarked sections.
This
saves on having to create redundant "sections" (one with bookmarks, one
with
section breaks) in order to achieve the desired effect of multiple TOCs,
one
for each "section" (chapter in a book, for example).

--
John Nurick [Microsoft Access MVP]

Please respond in the newgroup and not by email.

[John Nurick]

Hi Suzanne,

Where I work we routinely issue one, two or more drafts of a report,
often with significant changes between them, and each needing the full
complement of TOCs.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:00:23 -0500, "Suzanne S. Barnhill"
wrote:

In your scenario, I agree that the switch would be problematic, but I
personally would not be inserting these TOCs until editing was complete.


--
John Nurick [Microsoft Access MVP]

Please respond in the newgroup and not by email.

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Where I work, there's just me, and I've never actually had to do a partial
TOC, even for my clients who require umpteen drafts of stuff. I fully see
your point, but I still think this switch would be useful for the people to
whom it would be useful. g

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"John Nurick" wrote in message
...
Hi Suzanne,

Where I work we routinely issue one, two or more drafts of a report,
often with significant changes between them, and each needing the full
complement of TOCs.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 11:00:23 -0500, "Suzanne S. Barnhill"
wrote:

In your scenario, I agree that the switch would be problematic, but I
personally would not be inserting these TOCs until editing was complete.


--
John Nurick [Microsoft Access MVP]

Please respond in the newgroup and not by email.

[John Nurick]

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 14:29:43 -0500, "Suzanne S. Barnhill"
wrote:

this switch would be useful for the people to
whom it would be useful. g

There's no arguing with that!

--
John Nurick [Microsoft Access MVP]

Please respond in the newgroup and not by email.