Styles and Outline Numbering

[DebbiePartridge]

Hi all

Thought I had resolved this but it has come back to bite me so would b
grateful for your help, again. Sorry, the explanation is a long on
but I suspect the answer is a short one.

Word 2K - SP3/Win 2K & XP

Background

I have been trying to set up a numbering scheme required by one of ou
users (described below). I am coming to the conclusion that it wil
not work correctly because it is not logical. Please can someone tel
me if I am wrong and, if so, how to achieve it?

The numbering scheme required is:

1
1.1
1.1.1
(a)
1.1.1.1
(i)
1.1.1.1.1


The scheme has been set up as follows:

Number Description Outline Level Restart After
1 Level 1 1

1.1 Level 1 + Level 2 2 1

1.1.1 Level 1 + Level 2 + Level 3 3 2

(a) no previous levels included 4 3

1.1.1.1 Level 1 + Level 2 + Level 3 + a new number
5 4

(i) no previous levels included 6 5

1.1.1.1.1 Level 1 + Level 2 + Level 3 +Level 5 + a new number
7 6

The following works fine:

2 Level 1

2.1 Level 2

2.1.1 Level 3

(a) Level 4

2.1.1.1 Level 5

2.1.2 Level 3

(a) Level 4

(i) Level 6

2.1.2.1.1 Level 7

2.1.2.2 Level 5

(i) Level 6

However, if you number as follows then the sequence is incorrect:

3 Level 1

3.1 Level 2

3.1.1 Level 3

(a) Level 4

3.1.1.1 Level 5

(b) Level 4

3.1.1.1 Level 4

3.1.1.2 Level5

(i) Level 6

3.1.1.3 Level 5

(i) Level 6

3.1.1.3.1 Level 7

(ii) Level 6

3.1.1.3.1 Level 7


I can see the logic of why it wouldn't work as I think it is to do wit
the fact that the style mixes legal type and non-legal numbering bu
still requires some of the levels to be linked and that there might b
something wrong with restarting numbering after the previous level whe
that level is a completely different type of number. This wil
hopefully make more sense when you read the table below detailing ho
the scheme is set up.

The user also requires a slight modification on this scheme whereb
Level 4 becomes (i) and Level 6 becomes (a). I simply cannot get thes
two separate definitions to co-exist in the same template, either b
defining styles for just those levels or defining the complete set o
1-7 with different style names. I have resorted to doing i
programmatically. We have a paragraph numbering dialog screen and whe
the user selects the scheme they want I am currently getting the syste
to redefine the settings for Levels 4 and 6. I am not confident tha
this is going to be stable.

Thanks in advance for your hel

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

This is from the hip (and I am *not* one of the numbering gurus), but I'm
wondering if it might work (or at least be more logical) to defer the (a)
and (i) levels to the end. That is, set up as follows:

Level 1 1
Level 2 1.1
Level 3 1.1.1
Level 4 1.1.1.1
Level 5 1.1.1.1
Level 6 (a)
Level 7 (i)

Set Levels 2-5 to restart after the respective higher levels and Levels 6
and 7 to restart after some level that can be reliably expected to intervene
between lists. The reliability part is what will be difficult, however. But
if you effectively have (a) and (i) lists on varying levels, you've got two
more levels to work with, so you could define separate lists for Level 8 and
9. For other approaches, see
http://www.syntagma.demon.co.uk/FAQs/ListRestartMethods.htm

 

[Jean-Guy Marcil]

Hi Debbie,

I am not sure that I understand how the numbering scheme has to ultimtely
work.... I think your client needs to make an appointment with some
professional not related to the computer world, if you see what I mean!

Anyway, I first tried out youe numbering scheme and ws able to reproduce
exactly what you posted. Then, to fix the second set, I tried the following:

I selected the level 1 style from the Style formatting pane;
Went to the numbering dialog from there;
Clicked on Customize;
Selected Level 5 in the hierarchy,
At the bottom of the dialog, I set it to restart after Level 3 (not level
4);
With Level 7, I got it to restart after level 5 instead of level 6;
Clicked OK...;

Then my numbers changed from what you posted to this:
1. Level 1
1.1. Level 2
1.1.1. Level 3
a) Level 4
1.1.1.1. Level 5
b) Level 4
1.1.1.2. Level 5
1.1.1.3. Level 5
(i) Level 6
1.1.1.4. Level 5
(i) Level 6
1.1.1.4.1. Level 7
(ii) Level 6
1.1.1.4.2. Level 7

You are now left with the a) and i). Since they seem to be used all over the
place, irrespective of the preceding levels, I do not think it is possible
to have Word automatically restart the numbering according to a logic that
changes... Computers do not like changing logic! I mean, if the second level
4 (In my example above), numbered b), should actually be a), then it is
impossible to have that happen automatically because there is no higher
level in between the two occuences of those two level 4 paragraphs.

If what you want is:

1. Level 1
1.1. Level 2
1.1.1. Level 3
a. Level 4
1.1.1.1.1. Level 5
a. Level 4
1.1.1.1.2. Level 5
1.1.1.1.3. Level 5
i. Level 6
1.1.1.1.4. Level 5
i. Level 6
1.1.1.4.1. Level 7
i. Level 6
1.1.1.4.2. Level 7

Then another alternative is to have the main nubering shceme defined as a
5-level hierarchical style, then have a) as another independent regularly
numbered style, the same with i). This way, the user would just have to keep
switching bwetween styles and restart numbering (right click on the
paragraph).

Or try something along the lines of Suzanne's suggestion. But as there seems
no logic as to when the numbering restarts for a) and i), it will also prove
difficult to totally automatize, if not impossible.

Alternatively, what you could do is define those without an automatic number
and the user will have to maually type those in, restarting the numbering
where ever necessary acocording to his/her own needs.

Finally, you may want to ook into SEQ fields, but that might prove too
difficult to use for your client.

Make sure your client understand that what is requires is not normal
numbering behaviour for Word and Word was not designed to work that way.

HTH
--
Cheers!
_______________________________________
Jean-Guy Marcil - Word MVP
(e-mail address removed)
Word MVP site: http://www.word.mvps.org

 

[DebbiePartridge]

Thank you all. Thought I must have been missing something but finall
decided to explain to the client that this was just not a good idea.
Now have a nice, logical scheme. :