Strange outline list numbering required

[Phillip Debnam]

I hope someone can help with the following:

I need the outline list numbering indicated below for some regulatory
documentation, where the 'strange' refers to the need for 'S' and 'P' but
only in the third level in section 2 - hope that makes sense:

1.
2.
2.1.S.1
2.1.S.2
2.1.S.3
2.1.P.1
2.1.P.2
3
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3

etc

Look forward to hearing if anyone has come up against something similar

Thanks,

Phillip

 

[Cindy M.]

Hi Phillip,

Will the P's always follow the S's, and the numbering always restart for
them?

If yes, then you can do it. Set up levels 1, 2 and 3 as you normally would.
Note carefully the three indent and tab settings for level 3.

Define Level 4 for the "S" numbering: Delete the contents of the "Number
format" box. Set it to use the numbering from Levels 1 and 2, then type S.
into the "Number format" box, then insert the numbering for this level from
the "Number style" box. Change the tab and indent settings to those of Level
3. Set the Restart Numbering (click "More" to show this) to restart from
Level 2.

Define Level 5 for the "P" numbering. Proceed as for Level 4, but use P
instead of S in the Number format box.

I need the outline list numbering indicated below for some regulatory
documentation, where the 'strange' refers to the need for 'S' and 'P' but
only in the third level in section 2 - hope that makes sense:

1.
2.
2.1.S.1
2.1.S.2
2.1.S.3
2.1.P.1
2.1.P.2
3
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3

etc

Look forward to hearing if anyone has come up against something similar

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 17 2005)
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

 

[Phillip Debnam]

Hi Cindy -

thankyou very much - that was a whole lot simpler than i thought it would
be, and i have now learnt a bit more about the arcane subject of numbering.
I was half expecting to have to dabble in macros, but your method was really
clear and simple

Thanks again.

Phillip

 

[Cindy M.]

Hi =?Utf-8?B?UGhpbGxpcCBEZWJuYW0=?=,

I was half expecting to have to dabble in macros, but your method was really
clear and simple

I'm glad you found it so, I thought it complicated enough...

If that hadn't worked, my suggest would have been to use a combination of SEQ
fields and AutoText entries, on a toolbar. So I'm really glad it worked!

Cindy Meister