Inconsistent style application in cross references

[Lynn]

First off this is a first post to this group, so I
apologize if this is old ground. Secondly, I've been
working this for over two weeks, so I am bit frustrated and
it may show.

Now for the problem I am having. I have a fairly large
(18.5 Meg) Word file. It contains some 2000+ cross
references. Our final deliverable to our customer is a PDF
file. Our customer has requested that all internal links
(i.e., cross references) be identifiable in the PDF text
without having to run the pointer over the hot spot. They
have requested the "links" appear in blue underline.

Now that is fairly simple. Do a global search and replace
for all the REF in the hidden codes. Now here is where the
problem really starts. In the 'normal' view mode
(sometimes even in the 'print layout'), immediately after
running the search and replace, each of the cross
references shows the new style. However, when I go to the
'print layout' view, many of the cross references no longer
show the style.

After a significant amount of digging around (it's a shame
Macro$carf never felt that a reval codes such as
WordPerfect has wasn't needed for Word), I think I found
why the styles are changing. As (I think) we all know,
Word inserts a reference code where the cross reference is
inserted that is resolved to the text/value (i.e., maybe a
title or paragraph or table number) where the reference is
pointing. Well it seems that some of the values we are
pointing to have their own style (i.e., table numbers and
titles have their own style) and this style is carried back
to the resolved cross reference data.

I am going to use tables as my example, but there are other
cases doing the same thing. If I can fix one, I can then
(hopefully) apply the same criteria to the others.

Word has shown me it can handle (to some degree at least)
this mixed bag of styles. Some of the references to tables
appear with the style for the linked (the blue underline)
text, others, sometimes the very next piece of text, do not.

Using the field codes, I have been able to determine that
Word is not putting in a 'MERGEFORMAT' code in all the
changes. So what I wind up with as I move through the
document a character at a time is:

the normal style, the link style for one cursor movement,
then into the reference text and the style from whereever
this reference text came from.

When I go into the refernce code field, the style says it
is the link style, but as soon as I set the codes off and
go back to the resolved text, I'm back to the above.

I've tried copying and pasting the 'MERGEFORMAT' data from
one REF to another, that doesn't work. Running the search
and replace doesn't work because the REF only shows the
line style.

Another thing that I found is that some of the references
that are working, showing the style DO NOT have the
MERGEFORMAT in the REF. Just to add confusion to the problem.

So how does one fix this problem? Going through doing a
manual fix is not an alternative. As it is, the output is
totally unacceptable.

I aplolgize for the length of this post, but felt an
explanation of what I've done was in order.

One last thing, I have worked this file in Word 2000, 2002
and 2003 on machines with Windows 2000 and XP. While I'm
on the OS, I've run the PDF conversion on three machines.
Two with XP and one with 2000. The XP machines take at
least three hours to run the conversion, usually four plus.
Depending on the system, I also have been getting a Word
error messge stating that "Word doesn't have enough memory"
and that the changes cannot be undone. The Win2K with Word
2000 (on a P3 no less) zips through in about an hour.

Many thanks.

 

[garfield-n-odie]

If I were doing this, I would take all the MERGEFORMAT codes out of the
REF fields. MERGEFORMAT tells the REF field to use the style of the
text that the field is referencing. Try this: make a copy of the
document, then on the copy, take out all the MERGEFORMATs, and update
the fields. Do you get more consistent results?

 

[Margaret Aldis]

I don't think that's right - mergeformat tells Word to keep the formatting
that's been applied *to the field*, instead of losing it when the field
updates. I'm not sure I fully understand what the OP is trying to do, but if
it's keeping the blue underline formatting on references then I think the
mergeformat is needed.

If you apply bold or italic to a reference you'll see that Word
automatically adds the mergeformat flag. Unfortunately it doesn't do this
when you apply a character style. You also tend to get messy results if the
number of words in the referenced heading changes!

 

[garfield-n-odie]

Hi Margaret. Yes, what you said is how mergeformat is supposed to work.
But sometimes it seems to work more like what I said, and I've gotten
better results by it taking it out, which is why I suggested the OP try
it on a copy of the document. It appears that the OP is manually
applying blue underline to refs using a global search/replace. If
taking out mergeformat succeeds in stopping the refs from picking up the
style of the referenced text, which seems to be the problem the OP has,
then it's easy enough to replace the lost blue underline.

 

[Folk_lover]

Folks,

Thank you for the ideas. To clarify the situation a bit. Here's what
I did.

I developed a style for blue and underline and saved it to the
template.

I did a search and replace in the document using the following search
pattern "^d REF ". With no formatting applied to the search. The
replacement was to add the new style to the found text.

The search and replace has worked for most of the cross references,
especially those going to just a paragraph number. However, for
references to tables and figures, this is not always the case. Some
table and figure references show the style and when I look at those
field codes, they contain a MERGEFORMAT string. Those that do not
show the style DO NOT have the MERGEFORMAT string in the REF code.

As part of my "troubleshooting", I have highlighted (with the field
codes turned off) several of the references without the MERGEFORMAT
(the ones that show the style of the target in the referenced text)
and clicked on my new link style. The result is the link text style
now appears and when I look at the field codes, I see a MERGEFORMAT.

The problem is very noticable in one table (actually where I found
this happening). One column contains a reference to other tables that
provide expanded information.

In my original document (I had already started working from a copy as
I know better than to ruin the source file, been there done that), in
the field codes, there is just the REF and the style indicates the
style from the target. There are no MERGEFORMAT strings.

When I run the search and replace, the reference column in the first
five rows appears as desired, the remainder of the table is missing
the link style and maintained only the target style.

Now in those references that are correct (have the link style
showing), placing the cursor in the reference area shows the link
style (this is with field codes turned OFF). For those that do not
have the style showing, the style reads as I stated above. I see the
link style appear if the cursor is just before or just after the
"generated" text of the reference. As I stated in my first post,
turning the field codes on and placing the cursor in any of the REF
strings indicates the link style.

Again many thanks, I will look at your recommendations as soon as I
get done posting this. But I saw in the responses that I didn't do a
good job explaining the situation. Basically, why is Word not
applying the style change consistently throughout the document and how
to I fix it.

 

[Lynn]

Sheesh, I forgot that I was at home when I posted the above response,
so pardon the "different" name. I just happen to love folk music.

Lynn

 

[Lynn]

Well, I have tried removing the field codes from those
references that contained them. Now when I check them,
none of the references show the desired link style.

When I highlight the reference and apply the link style to
a reference that DOES NOT have a MERGEFORMAT in the field
codes, adding the link style places one there and the
reference shows the style in any mode (normal or print
layout.

It seems I did make one errouneous statement in my earlier
posts. I stated that the original file did not have any
mergeformats in the table and figure references. I
apologize for that, some of them did.

I didn't author this file, so I don't know if the author
used the same method of inserting references. However,
some of the references to tables and figures contain a
MERGEFORMAT and others do not. I tried inserting several
references into the document, using references to tables
that did have the MERGEFORMAT and without. I also tried
with the insert as hyperlink checked and unchecked. None
of my test references contained a MERGEFORMAT.

I then did my global search and replace to add my link
style. None of the references picked up a MERGEFORMAT,
but they did appear on screen with the format. Lastly,
when I toggled between normal view and print layout and
then back (either order), the added link format was no
longer there.

Bottom line is for this to work, I need the MERGEFORMAT.

Looking at how Word is "working" (now that's a
contradiction in terms), I really have other questions.
But they are for another posting.

Lynn

 

[Bob S]

I don't think that's right - mergeformat tells Word to keep the formatting
that's been applied *to the field*, instead of losing it when the field
updates. I'm not sure I fully understand what the OP is trying to do, but if
it's keeping the blue underline formatting on references then I think the
mergeformat is needed.

If you apply bold or italic to a reference you'll see that Word
automatically adds the mergeformat flag. Unfortunately it doesn't do this
when you apply a character style. You also tend to get messy results if the
number of words in the referenced heading changes!

MERGEFORMAT is a bit strange. When the field is updated, Word looks at
the paragraph styles, character styles, and direct formatting that you
have applied to the previously-existing field result, and applies the
same formatting word-for-word to the new result. If you have applied
orange superscript to the third word of the old result, the third word
of the new result will be orange superscript. If you applied bold to
all seven word of the old result and the new result has eight words,
the first seven words will be bold and the eighth word will not. (Word
only looks at the first letter of each word when deciding what
formatting to preserve; it will not preserve partial-word formatting.)

Bob S

 

[Bob S]

Does CHARFORMAT do what you want? Add that switch to the field codes,
and format the field code itself (REF) as blue underline.

CHARFORMAT could be classified as weird. This switch causes the whole
field result to be formatted the same way the first character of the
field code itself is formatted! Either direct formatting (e.g. Format
| Font) or a character style will work. (Frequent Error: Simply typing
the field code name in upper or lower case letters has no effect; that
is not formatting!)

Bob S