Merge Fields in Header?

[Joseph N.]

I am trying to create a directory merge and have some questions:

1. Is there any way to have merge fields a header? I am merging from a db which is managing the export/merge operation and handing the desired fields to Word (Word 2002). I have put the fields in a header, but only the field names, not the variable database data, result in the finished document.

2. I am placing the information in a table. It looks like the only way I can predictably format the borders of the table is to select "all," i.e., lines between and around all of the cells. Does other formatting--like only above and below each row/record--have to wait until after the merge operation is completed?

3. Why does LISTNUM work but not SEQ? SEQ does not advance; all rows are numbered "1."

TIA.

 

[Cindy M -WordMVP-]

Hi Joseph,

I am trying to create a directory merge and have some questions:

1. Is there any way to have merge fields a header? I am merging from a db which is managing the export/merge operation and handing the desired fields to Word (Word 2002). I have put the fields in a header, but only the field names, not the variable database data, result in the finished document.

Not directly, no; not with a catalog merge. The problem is, when more than one record can print on the same page, that Word doesn't know which record to use in the header.

Best bet is to format the field you want to see in the header with a style, and then use a StyleRef field to display the content.

2. I am placing the information in a table. It looks like the only way I can predictably format the borders of the table is to select "all," i.e., lines between and around all of the cells. Does other formatting--like only above and below each row/record--have to wait until after the merge operation is completed?

I'd try using a table STYLE (look first in Table/Table AutoFormat) where the outer as well as internal borders are pre-defined.

3. Why does LISTNUM work but not SEQ? SEQ does not advance; all rows are numbered "1."

In the merge result, try Ctrl+A, F9 to force all the fields to update. You might also try the MergeSEQ field.

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 8 2004)
http://www.word.mvps.org

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

 

[Joseph N.]

Very helpful info, Cindy; thank you.

 

[Joseph N.]

In the merge result, try Ctrl+A, F9 to force all the fields to
update. You might also try the MergeSEQ field.

Hmmm.... I've read the Help file, though not tried the various
possibilities. Do you know, off the top of your head, what the
comparitive merits in this situation would be of using MERGESEQ,
MERGEREC, and LISTNUM? LISTNUM works, but the Help file suggests
that the other two would work, also. Any differences I should care
about?

 

[Cindy M -WordMVP-]

Hi Joseph,

I've read the Help file, though not tried the various
possibilities. Do you know, off the top of your head, what the
comparitive merits in this situation would be of using MERGESEQ,
MERGEREC, and LISTNUM? LISTNUM works, but the Help file suggests
that the other two would work, also. Any differences I should care
about?

"Off the top of my head" is a bit vague, but MergeSEQ would be more
what you want than MergeRec, as I recall (and understand your
question). MergeRec counts the position of the actual record, while
MergeSeq counts only the records that are merged, as they merge. If
ListNum works correctly for you, then either that or MergeSeq would be
fine. I think you have more options to format and calculate using
MergeSeq, but that's not an issue, here.

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 8 2004)
http://www.word.mvps.org

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