mailmerge field name truncation

[BPS]

I'm using a comma-delimited text file as the datasource for a mailmerge.
Some of the field names are 40 characters long. I've created a document in
Word 2000 that uses this text file. In Word 2000, the mail merge works
successfully. In Word 2002 and 2003, when I try to perform the merge, I get
messages about fields missing in the text file (the document has fields that
are not found in the data file). When I edit the document in Word 2002 and
2003 using the same data file, I see that the names have been truncated (at
38 characters in Word 2002, at 39 characters in Word 2003). Does anyone have
any ideas what might be causing this? Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Peter Jamieson]

All I can tell you is the result of a quick look I took at Word 2003's
behaviour in this area (from May 2006):

------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know all the rules for dealing with names, but for text files in
Word 2003, Word
a. truncates names over 40 characters.
b. if you connect using ODBC or Word's internal text converter, word
displays the same names in dropdowns as the field names it recognises.
however, if you connect using OLEDB, it displays a name, truncated to 64
characters, in the drop-down filed insertion menu on the merge toolbar and
in the Mail Merge Recipients box. However, it may not display the actual
name - it may display the name preceded by the filename and a #.
c. If you have 2 long names over 40 characters and the first 40 characters
are the same, with the text converter, Word will "mangle" the names, e.g. if
the 40 characters end in xxx, the first name will probably end in xxx and
the second in xx1, but of course there could be a real name whose first 40
characters ends in xx1, so the algorithm needs to be a bit more complicated.
ISTR there used to be a knowledgebase article about this. However, with
OLEDB Word truncates both names and it becomes impossible to insert the
data for the second name using a mergefield.


------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't find a 39-character limit but perhaps I didn't push the experiments
hard enough.

Peter Jamieson