INCLUDETEXT Fields - are these the same as Master Documents?

[Robert Lane]

I have made a couple posts about Master Documents and know NOW that they
suck.

I have printed out the MVP document on Word Templates and am studying
that.

BUT no one has actually given me any advice on I INCLUDETEXT Fields.
Are these safe to use.

I ask, because this book is already broken up into 20+ chapters, and I
am wondering if building a template and then moving all these documents
into it and reformatting everything -- well wouldn't it be easier to
just use the INCLUDETEXT Field and link the chapters in.

B U T ... that idea sounds a lot like the structure of a Master Document
with all its nasty little problems.

So, can anyone that has worked with INCLUDETEXT Fields in Word 2000 give
me their take on this matter?

Thanks!

 

[Margaret Aldis]

Hi Robert

I've used INCLUDETEXT fields and I think they do offer a useful alternative
to the dreaded Master document feature where there are document management
reasons for keeping chapters or other 'subdocuments' in separate files (for
instance, they are 'owned' by different people). I have not hammered them on
real life large manuals, but I'm fairly confident they aren't invoking the
same danger areas. However, from your earlier posts I gather this is a book
by a single author, and for this I would generally go for the single file.
Since the chapters are currently separate, it's probably worth doing any
restyling and heavy editing first, to save a bit of grunting through pages.

Whatever, you need to get the template and styles solid first, before
bringing in the text.

For reference on INCLUDETEXT:

You can't cross reference into the included files - if you need live cross
references between your subdocuments, you really need to bring them into a
single file. (For a few references, you could probably use INCLUDETEXT on
bookmarks around headings in the files, but this is going to get longwinded
and messy for rich cross referencing.)

You have to make all your changes in the separate files, *not* the container
document - it's easy to forget and start editing the text in-situ, in which
case your edits will be lost when you update the field. This fits no problem
with strong doc management control, but may drive a naive user crazy. (IIRC
there is a command hidden somewhere that purports to update back into the
field, but I haven't used it ans suspect this one could invoke some of the
master document nasties.)

 

[Robert Lane]

For reference on INCLUDETEXT:

You can't cross reference into the included files - if you need live cross
references between your subdocuments, you really need to bring them into a
single file. (For a few references, you could probably use INCLUDETEXT on
bookmarks around headings in the files, but this is going to get longwinded
and messy for rich cross referencing.)

You have to make all your changes in the separate files, *not* the container
document - it's easy to forget and start editing the text in-situ, in which
case your edits will be lost when you update the field. This fits no problem
with strong doc management control, but may drive a naive user crazy. (IIRC
there is a command hidden somewhere that purports to update back into the
field, but I haven't used it ans suspect this one could invoke some of the
master document nasties.)

THANK YOU! I think that addresses my question very nicely. I will do
the rebuild using the single document/template method others have been
suggesting.

Best!

 

[Robert M. Franz (RMF)]

Hi Margaret,

Margaret Aldis wrote:
[..]

You have to make all your changes in the separate files, *not* the
container document - it's easy to forget and start editing the text
in-situ, in which case your edits will be lost when you update the
field.

FWIW, MVP Lutz Gentkow once pointed out to me that you actually CAN make
chances in the container document and "play them back":
CTRL SHIFT F7 will do the magic trick ...

Greetinx
..bob
...Word-MVP
....comes in handy when you want to batch-replace that way ...

 

[Robert M. Franz (RMF)]

:
[..]

FWIW, MVP Lutz Gentkow once pointed out to me that you actually CAN
make chances in the container document and "play them back":
CTRL SHIFT F7 will do the magic trick ...

chances (sic!) are that you folks find out one day that I don't like
spell checkers ... ;-)

..bob
...Word-MVP

 

[Margaret Aldis]

Hi Robert - Ah, that's the 'hidden command' I mentioned later in the post -
I couldn't remember what it was called or what its shortcut was. Has anyone
used this extensively and is it safe? I thought it might be invoking the
same stuff as master documents and have been very chary of it.

--
Margaret Aldis - Microsoft Word MVP
Syntagma partnership site: http://www.syntagma.co.uk
Word MVP FAQ site: http://www.mvps.org/word

Hi Margaret,

Margaret Aldis wrote:
[..]

You have to make all your changes in the separate files, *not* the
container document - it's easy to forget and start editing the text
in-situ, in which case your edits will be lost when you update the
field.

FWIW, MVP Lutz Gentkow once pointed out to me that you actually CAN make
chances in the container document and "play them back":
CTRL SHIFT F7 will do the magic trick ...

Greetinx
.bob
..Word-MVP
...comes in handy when you want to batch-replace that way ...
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
\ /
X Against HTML
/ \ in e-mail & news

 

[Cindy Meister -WordMVP-]

Hi Margaret,

Has anyone
used this extensively and is it safe?

I'm not aware of any issues using Ctrl+Shift+F7 - except
remembering to use it! Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to
make a FileSave and Fileclose macro for such a project that
would invoke this for the document...

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update
Sep 30 2003)
http://www.mvps.org/word

This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any
follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail