Formatting When Paragraph Mark is Deleted

[irasiegel1]

Up until very recently, my MS Word (Office 2004) on my MacBook Pro
with OS 10.4.11, worked like this:

"If you delete the end of a paragraph (i.e., the paragraph mark), the
remaining paragraph text will take on the style of the succeeding
paragraph."

NOW, when I delete a paragraph mark, the text of the succeeding
paragraph takes on the style of the preceeding paragraph.

What happened, and can I fix this?

Thanks.

Ira

 

[Elliott Roper]

Up until very recently, my MS Word (Office 2004) on my MacBook Pro
with OS 10.4.11, worked like this:

"If you delete the end of a paragraph (i.e., the paragraph mark), the
remaining paragraph text will take on the style of the succeeding
paragraph."

NOW, when I delete a paragraph mark, the text of the succeeding
paragraph takes on the style of the preceeding paragraph.

What happened, and can I fix this?

You are right. I never worked out whether a paragraph mark contained
the magic for the paragraph it terminates or the subsequent one.
The current behaviour is illogical, at least to us poor saddos looking
from the outside in.

They attach the mark to the end of the paragraph. So when you delete
the magic, you would expect the stuff prior to the paragraph mark to
inherit the magic from the next paragraph mark it can see.

So, sorry. No solution, just sympathy.
I think Microsoft is descending into a period of terminal brain damage.
Corporate Alzheimer's.

I was going to say something else. But I won't.
End of an era.

 

[irasiegel1]

You are right. I never worked out whether a paragraph mark contained
the magic for the paragraph it terminates or the subsequent one.
The current behaviour is illogical, at least to us poor saddos looking
from the outside in.

They attach the mark to the end of the paragraph. So when you delete
the magic, you would expect the stuff prior to the paragraph mark to
inherit the magic from the next paragraph mark it can see.

So, sorry. No solution, just sympathy.
I think Microsoft is descending into a period of terminal brain damage.
Corporate Alzheimer's.

I was going to say something else. But I won't.
End of an era.

Well, thanks for the sympathy and the confirmation that on this matter
I'm having a clear moment. ;-)

 

[John McGhie]

Yeah, sorry, they changed it to emulate the WinWord behaviour.

They changed WinWord several versions ago to "fix" the existing behaviour,
because the clueless newbies couldn't understand the concept of the
formatting properties being stored in the terminating paragraph mark.

Now the seasoned professionals cannot understand why the formatting from the
deleted paragraph mark is now copied into the following paragraph mark.

The new behaviour is a nasty kludge that apparently the clueless newbies
find easier to understand

Cheers

Well, thanks for the sympathy and the confirmation that on this matter
I'm having a clear moment. ;-)

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory, Australia
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[CyberTaz]

I know it came as a rude reversal to many of the "traditionalists", but
quite frankly I found the change to provide a more logical consequence than
the previous method. Having used Word since its debut I was hardly a
"newbie" when the change took place and I never could understand the earlier
behavior. [Well, I *understood* it, I just didn't *like* it]

My take, FWIW, is:

The flow of the doc is from one para to the next,
The ¶ breaks the current para to denote its end and the start of another,
Removing the ¶ says "I don't want to break this para after all" so...
What *was* the para that followed should now be a part of this one, so it
only seems natural that it should be formatted the same way.

IOW - just like deleting any other content - the remainder shifts *up* to
join the preceding, the preceding doesn't shift *down* to join the rest.
Since the lower is joining the former it only makes sense [to me] that it
comply with the style used there... Kinda like the ol' "When in Rome..."
axiom;-)

 

[irasiegel1]

Hi Bob,
You write, "I found the change to provide a more logical consequence
than the previous method," and then provide an explanation. I
understand your position and your explanation.

I also disagree with it. In MS Word, the formatting is supposed to
reside in the ¶. For example, if you copy a first ¶ and paste it in
place of a second ¶, the formatting of the first ¶ is applied to the
paragraph that had ended with the second ¶ but now ends with the first
¶. Since the formatting is in the ¶ sign, that makes sense and, to
me, the new method is thus counter-intuitive.

Ira

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Ira:

Yeah, I agree!!! YOU are "correct" and Bob is "wrong"!!

Running away... Very fast....

Hi Bob,
You write, "I found the change to provide a more logical consequence
than the previous method," and then provide an explanation. I
understand your position and your explanation.

I also disagree with it. In MS Word, the formatting is supposed to
reside in the ¶. For example, if you copy a first ¶ and paste it in
place of a second ¶, the formatting of the first ¶ is applied to the
paragraph that had ended with the second ¶ but now ends with the first
¶. Since the formatting is in the ¶ sign, that makes sense and, to
me, the new method is thus counter-intuitive.

Ira

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory, Australia
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[CyberTaz]

Hello again, Ira -

Obviously one of those issues that can be discussed for eons with no
resolution in sight, but since I need to work up an appetite for this
afternoon's feast I'll continue the debate Please see below:

Hi Bob,
You write, "I found the change to provide a more logical consequence
than the previous method," and then provide an explanation. I
understand your position and your explanation.

I also disagree with it.

Certainly your right to do so... I fully respect that.

In MS Word, the formatting is supposed to
reside in the ¶.

On this we agree - in fact we can say that it *does* & eliminate the
"supposed to".

For example, if you copy a first ¶ and paste it in
place of a second ¶, the formatting of the first ¶ is applied to the
paragraph that had ended with the second ¶ but now ends with the first
¶. Since the formatting is in the ¶ sign, that makes sense and, to
me, the new method is thus counter-intuitive.

This is where I take issue with your argument - In the above example you are
*replacing* one paragraph with another, so _yes_, the formatting of the
pasted para most definitely should be retained *if* you've copied & pasted
its ¶ along with it. (How about if you just copy/paste the complete text of
a para but *without* the ¶?)

However, in your original post the issue was not the same as this example -
you specifically referred to removing the break between paras, not replacing
one complete para with another - Different procedures = Different behaviors.
I still maintain my opinion that when the leading para sucks in the trailing
text it now constitutes 1 para that should retain the formatting of the
leader... Essentially bringing the trailing text within the leading para's ¶
so the one at the end of what is no longer a para gets blown off since it's
no longer pertinent.

Ira

I don't expect to "convert" you to my way of thinking - nor do I have any
desire to do so. My only purpose is to explain how I see it working, but
next I have to hunt down The Dreaded McGhie & lop off it's ears in an effort
to regain some respect in the community;-)

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[CyberTaz]

So unlike you to be the provocateur, John [he said with tongue literally
piercing his cheek from within] -

Hi Ira:

Yeah, I agree!!! YOU are "correct" and Bob is "wrong"!!

Just because YOU agree doesn't make *anything* right, but that's not the
point;-) What surprises me about your position is that you're the one who
always preaches Word's "top to bottom" flow concept but here you seem to
expect it to flow bottom to top. No wonder Word never fails to perplex -
those who best understand it do the same

Just to stoke the fire, I find it further counter-intuitive [in view of that
"fix"] that Section Breaks *don't* work the same way.

In a 2 section doc: If I have section 1 with 1" margins followed by section
2 with 1.25" margins & later decide to delete the section break I'd rather
*not* have the margins of the prior section increased. Rather I'd expect the
margins of the trailing section (since that section no longer exists) to
inherit the attribs of the section to which it was being appended. In this
example I now have a document consisting only of section 1 which has now
been changed to conform to the specs of a section 2 that is no longer
there... *That's* logical‽ Intuitive‽ Right‽

Running away... Very fast....

And rightly so, curmudgeonly coward;-) At least you seem to know when you're
wrong... Even if you do adamantly deny it

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[Elliott Roper]

Hello again, Ira -

Obviously one of those issues that can be discussed for eons with no
resolution in sight, but since I need to work up an appetite for this
afternoon's feast I'll continue the debate Please see below:

However, in your original post the issue was not the same as this example -
you specifically referred to removing the break between paras, not replacing
one complete para with another - Different procedures = Different behaviors.
I still maintain my opinion that when the leading para sucks in the trailing
text it now constitutes 1 para that should retain the formatting of the
leader... Essentially bringing the trailing text within the leading para's ¦
so the one at the end of what is no longer a para gets blown off since it's
no longer pertinent.

I don't expect to "convert" you to my way of thinking - nor do I have any
desire to do so. My only purpose is to explain how I see it working, but
next I have to hunt down The Dreaded McGhie & lop off it's ears in an effort
to regain some respect in the community;-)

I'm with Ira. That's nuts. The para mark belongs to the para it
completes.
If you blow it away, you should blow it away. You don't want it to
scuttle off and corrupt the next paragraph, effectively deleting the
paragraph mark that you were not deleting and not deleting the one you
thought you were deleting. Well then, what should happen to the text
preceding that para you though you were deleting? OK, you know already
that the magic is held in the para mark at the end of the para, so it
logical that the text to the left of the mark you delete assumes the
properties (aka magic) of the next para mark it can see to its right.

You are right about McGhie. It pains me to agree with him, but this
time....

Your's is an interesting way of looking at it. I can almost get my head
around it. You are thinking text block, and I'm thinking para mark.
The bit I don't get is why you made the jump. We are deleting para
marks after all.

 

[irasiegel1]

Hi Bob,

Your write,

In a 2 section doc: If I have section 1 with 1" margins followed by section
2 with 1.25" margins & later decide to delete the section break I'd rather
*not* have the margins of the prior section increased. Rather I'd expect the
margins of the trailing section (since that section no longer exists) to
inherit the attribs of the section to which it was being appended. In this
example I now have a document consisting only of section 1 which has now
been changed to conform to the specs of a section 2 that is no longer
there... *That's* logical‽ Intuitive‽ Right‽

This is what MS Word Help says, "Note When you delete a section
break, you also delete the section formatting for the text above it.
That text becomes part of the following section, and it assumes the
formatting of that section."

So, if we can get Microsoft to pick a logic system and stick with it
(I personally prefer the logic of formatting residing in a particular
¶ sign and that its formatting not change unless I change it), we'd be
fine.

Ira

 

[CyberTaz]

So, if we can get Microsoft to pick a logic system and stick with it
(I personally prefer the logic of formatting residing in a particular
¶ sign and that its formatting not change unless I change it), we'd be
fine.

Ira

Or better yet, how about compromise... If you delete a ¶ between 2 paras
that are formatted differently it elicits a prompt asking *which* formatting
you want to retain. Same for section breaks.

Where MS is concerned I think we'd have far better luck with a feature
request as opposed to eliciting unanimity in a conglomerate consisting
primarily of technoboomers;-)

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[CyberTaz]

Hello Mr. Roper -

I had a feeling you'd be along sooner or later;-) All we need now is some
commentary from a certain CH as well as a few others.

I full well realize I'm in the minority here and don't expect to change
anyone's mind. It just seems to make perfect sense to me that if I join a
paragraph to one that precedes it that the elder statesman dominate... After
all, the ¶ says "start a new para", removing it should say "Aw, never
mind!", so it's only natural that the ¶ at the end of the para that no
longer exists be the one to be trashed. In the terms of your post, the
second ¶ "completes" a body of text that doesn't any longer comprise a para
because it has been added to the one before. Consequently, it's a logical
extension of the process that the latter ¶ (along with its formatting
instruction) be the one to go since the para it "completed" is no longer a
para. IOW, if *that* para no longer exists as an entity why should *its*
formatting instruction remain in control? Right or wrong, nuts or not, I
can't see it any other way - never could, never will

I don't think it's so much a matter of 'block vs. mark' as it is of what
happens technically vs. what the logical result should be.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[Clive Huggan]

Well, since you ask: CH was sleeping the sleep of someone who had met his
vexatious deadline at 8.30 pm and had then watched the amazing story of Greg
Chappell's futile attempt to turn the Indian cricket team into World Cup
champions. If I had known that such energy was being expended on the other
side of the planet I would have got up to my keyboard and taken part [no,
that's not an invitation to telephone me].

And I still haven't properly woken up, so be gentle with me...

First, thou treadst on Hallowed Ground, because if I recall correctly the
Holy Word 5.1a <sigh> and its predecessors used to behave this way. I
remember complaining in 2001 when I was dragged screaming and unconvinced
into the ported-from-Windows world, and being thumped over the ear by one
J..n McG..e (not to be confused with J..n McG.....y, who is always right).
The logic was of course impeccable once one bore in mind the transcendency
of the Holy Paragraph Mark.

I think Bob's
"I-don't-necessarily-like-it-but-here's-a-conceptual-way-of-understanding-it
" hypothesis is brilliant. Given that the chances of Microsoft changing the
behaviour are comparable to a snowflake's chance in the Simpson Desert, I
think we had better get used to it.

<staggers off to make spouse a heart-starting cup of tea>

<forgets to Send>

<returns; observes that first paragraph smacks of diarizing>

Ho! Is it really 18 months since Pepys last opined? (Thread: Second screen
scrolling bug. Has it gone away? 3 June 2006)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And up betimes, my whole family lying longer this morning than was fit, and
to the great silicon machine, whereby it announced much intellectual travail
in the Homopodes while I did slumber.

And the profundity was "Shall the fashion be aligned to that of the pilcrow
that followeth, or shall the paragraph be reformed to that of the former?"

I did contemplate happier times, when the stripling Gates did keep his grip
upon the tiller of the Company and The Word V.Ia did enjoy primacy; then the
vanitie of the Men of Marketing who in divers years did adorn the volumes
with drivel such that they did have a fit of the stone.

And I fancied that the question of the logic or the absence thereof matters
not to one who shall bespare himself of the evils of The Word MMVIII but
mayhap shall fall into the warm embrace of iTravail 0VIII.

After eating upon the toast the marmalade of Mr Cooper of Oxford I did
adjust the mistletoe on my shirt-tail and to the office did depart to work
awhile...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(With acknowledgement to m'learned colleague Roper for the original
expression of paragraph 2.)

CH
===

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Ira/Bob/Elliott:

Well.... The internal object model is exactly the way it should be: for
each object, the terminating mark is a pointer to the property container.

Which is a long-winded way of saying that the paragraph's properties are
stored in the paragraph mark, and the section's properties are stored in the
terminating section break.

However, following user research presumably conducted amongst illiterate
WordPerfect Users by the Microsoft Marketing Department, the programmers
were forced to insert the two nasty work-arounds we are complaining about


The work-arounds are simply horrible hacks in the code that override the
object model, because knee-cap-level users were unable to understand the
principle

From my point of view, the cure is worse than the disease Word has a
consistent object model except for these two exceptions that you have to
remember after you have learned the rule...

Cheers

Hi Bob,

Your write,


This is what MS Word Help says, "Note When you delete a section
break, you also delete the section formatting for the text above it.
That text becomes part of the following section, and it assumes the
formatting of that section."

So, if we can get Microsoft to pick a logic system and stick with it
(I personally prefer the logic of formatting residing in a particular
¶ sign and that its formatting not change unless I change it), we'd be
fine.

Ira

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory, Australia
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Carl Witthoft]

But what you're all forgetting is that most users have no clue what a
paragraph mark is, having never seen one. The concept of displaying
"invisibles" is foreign to 99+44/100 percent of Word users.
Then they come whining to us when they can't figure out their formatting
or spacing.


So in the long run, it doesn't help the average (l)user no matter which
way Microsoft decides to "carry over" the paragraph formatting.

 

[John McGhie]

Correct I agree.

But I am afraid I come from the school that says "you do not make the car
easier to drive by removing the dashboard. You just make accidents more
likely!"

Cheers

But what you're all forgetting is that most users have no clue what a
paragraph mark is, having never seen one. The concept of displaying
"invisibles" is foreign to 99+44/100 percent of Word users.
Then they come whining to us when they can't figure out their formatting
or spacing.


So in the long run, it doesn't help the average (l)user no matter which
way Microsoft decides to "carry over" the paragraph formatting.

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory, Australia
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]