[Ed Sheehan]

I have a similar problem as Oscar above. I have 12 columns and 99 rows, all
filled with text and formatting (sections with gray headings etc.).

This table has three 4-column sections side-by-side. I need to add some rows
to only the rightmost section, but even via spitting cells, the whole
12-column row gets split. And unlike inserting rows, splitting cells makes
only the text contents move down, not the formatting, border styles etc.
Very frustrating!

Can I split the table along the third major column (actually between col8
and col9)? As I understand it, I can only split at a row border, not a
column border.

Or do I need to just make three tables out of the thing, then attach them
together physically but not logically, so they'll stay independent? If so,
how can I do that?

Thanks,

Ed

[Jay Freedman]

Add more of the complete 12-column rows to the bottom of the table.
Then turn off the borders of the first 9 columns in those rows. Once
the borders are gone, the cells are invisible (unless you turn on the
gridlines).

--
Regards,
Jay Freedman
Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so all may benefit.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 17:43:19 -0600, "Ed Sheehan"
wrote:

I have a similar problem as Oscar above. I have 12 columns and 99 rows, all
filled with text and formatting (sections with gray headings etc.).

This table has three 4-column sections side-by-side. I need to add some rows
to only the rightmost section, but even via spitting cells, the whole
12-column row gets split. And unlike inserting rows, splitting cells makes
only the text contents move down, not the formatting, border styles etc.
Very frustrating!

Can I split the table along the third major column (actually between col8
and col9)? As I understand it, I can only split at a row border, not a
column border.

Or do I need to just make three tables out of the thing, then attach them
together physically but not logically, so they'll stay independent? If so,
how can I do that?

Thanks,

Ed

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Are the three four-column sections independent? That is, do the fifth and
ninth columns have the same content as the first, and so on?* If so, why not
put 99 rows and four columns in three newspaper-style columns? Although you
could insert column breaks as needed, this would break the table; if you
want to be able to treat it as a continuous table, you can force the column
breaks by applying "Keep with next" to the appropriate rows.

*To clarify, I mean if the table is something like this:

Name Address City State Name Address City State (etc. twice more)

--
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.

"Ed Sheehan" wrote in message
...
I have a similar problem as Oscar above. I have 12 columns and 99 rows,
all
filled with text and formatting (sections with gray headings etc.).

This table has three 4-column sections side-by-side. I need to add some
rows
to only the rightmost section, but even via spitting cells, the whole
12-column row gets split. And unlike inserting rows, splitting cells makes
only the text contents move down, not the formatting, border styles etc.
Very frustrating!

Can I split the table along the third major column (actually between col8
and col9)? As I understand it, I can only split at a row border, not a
column border.

Or do I need to just make three tables out of the thing, then attach them
together physically but not logically, so they'll stay independent? If so,
how can I do that?

Thanks,

Ed

[Ed Sheehan]

The sections all have unique content. It's a doctor's diagnostic chart, with
service headings and detailed treatments under those headings. I did see
your previous helps with the "keep with next" suggestion. That worked for
the first two columns, but the third was shifted to the right somewhat and
didn't properly "attach" to the other two.

What I have done, which seems to be working nicely, is create three text
boxes, split the table into separate sections and just paste them into the
boxes. By allowing overlap I can micro-position them to align perfectly.
This gives the added ability to independently insert/delete rows as new
medical treatments emerge/atrophy, without affecting other sections. The
worst that will happen is that some cleanup will be required at the bottom
of the affected table section in order to present a clean bottom border, but
that was necessary before as well.

This things we do to gain superior formatting over Excel!

Thank you for your suggestion.

Ed

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
Are the three four-column sections independent? That is, do the fifth and
ninth columns have the same content as the first, and so on?* If so, why
not
put 99 rows and four columns in three newspaper-style columns? Although
you
could insert column breaks as needed, this would break the table; if you
want to be able to treat it as a continuous table, you can force the
column
breaks by applying "Keep with next" to the appropriate rows.

*To clarify, I mean if the table is something like this:

Name Address City State Name Address City State (etc. twice more)

--
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.

"Ed Sheehan" wrote in message
...
I have a similar problem as Oscar above. I have 12 columns and 99 rows,
all
filled with text and formatting (sections with gray headings etc.).

This table has three 4-column sections side-by-side. I need to add some
rows
to only the rightmost section, but even via spitting cells, the whole
12-column row gets split. And unlike inserting rows, splitting cells
makes
only the text contents move down, not the formatting, border styles etc.
Very frustrating!

Can I split the table along the third major column (actually between col8
and col9)? As I understand it, I can only split at a row border, not a
column border.

Or do I need to just make three tables out of the thing, then attach them
together physically but not logically, so they'll stay independent? If
so,
how can I do that?

Thanks,

Ed

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Well, I didn't mean that the content was repeated but that the headings were
repeated, that is, that it was a four-column table split into three
sections, which it sounds as if it is. Personally, I think linked text boxes
would be a lot more difficult to maintain than snaking columns, but I try to
avoid floating objects of any kind in my documents except when absolutely
necessary.

--
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.

"Ed Sheehan" wrote in message
...
The sections all have unique content. It's a doctor's diagnostic chart,
with
service headings and detailed treatments under those headings. I did see
your previous helps with the "keep with next" suggestion. That worked for
the first two columns, but the third was shifted to the right somewhat and
didn't properly "attach" to the other two.

What I have done, which seems to be working nicely, is create three text
boxes, split the table into separate sections and just paste them into the
boxes. By allowing overlap I can micro-position them to align perfectly.
This gives the added ability to independently insert/delete rows as new
medical treatments emerge/atrophy, without affecting other sections. The
worst that will happen is that some cleanup will be required at the bottom
of the affected table section in order to present a clean bottom border,
but
that was necessary before as well.

This things we do to gain superior formatting over Excel!

Thank you for your suggestion.

Ed

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
Are the three four-column sections independent? That is, do the fifth
and
ninth columns have the same content as the first, and so on?* If so, why
not
put 99 rows and four columns in three newspaper-style columns? Although
you
could insert column breaks as needed, this would break the table; if you
want to be able to treat it as a continuous table, you can force the
column
breaks by applying "Keep with next" to the appropriate rows.

*To clarify, I mean if the table is something like this:

Name Address City State Name Address City State (etc. twice more)

--
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.

"Ed Sheehan" wrote in message
...
I have a similar problem as Oscar above. I have 12 columns and 99 rows,
all
filled with text and formatting (sections with gray headings etc.).

This table has three 4-column sections side-by-side. I need to add some
rows
to only the rightmost section, but even via spitting cells, the whole
12-column row gets split. And unlike inserting rows, splitting cells
makes
only the text contents move down, not the formatting, border styles
etc.
Very frustrating!

Can I split the table along the third major column (actually between
col8
and col9)? As I understand it, I can only split at a row border, not a
column border.

Or do I need to just make three tables out of the thing, then attach
them
together physically but not logically, so they'll stay independent? If
so,
how can I do that?

Thanks,

Ed