field codes deleted

[John F]

We have long used SEQ field codes as variables in word documents - primarily
for the purpose of controlling page numbering (as described in various kb
articles).

There appears to be a major issue crept in to Word 2007 in that when using
"Accept Changes", all SEQ field codes within the area of acceptance are
deleted!

This first came to light when a colleague started on a new revision of a
document and used "accept all changes" on the previously published revision -
all of the SEQ field codes in the document were deleted. I have since
experimented using "Accept Change" on various parts of the document, and SEQ
codes within the acceptance area are deleted.

 

[Stefan Blom]

In the Track Changes Options dialog box, make sure that deleted items are
*not* formatted as hidden. Does that help?

Also, note that Word will display updated SEQ fields as deleted and
reinserted; this is normal behavior (until you accept changes and turn off
the tracking).

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP


in message
news:[email protected]...

 

[John F]

Thanks for the response, but no it doesn't help. I used "strikethrough"
instead of hidden, and the field still just disappears.

I have tried creating a simple new document and putting SEQ fields in it,
and don't seem to get the problem. Strange then that the problem has crept
into about 20 large documents we have.

 

[macropod]

Hi John,

Most likely someone overtyped the SEQ fields or converted them to plain text via Ctrl-Shift-F9.

Cheers

 

[John F]

I wish.

The are not plain text - they are functioning correctly.

They only get deleted when doing accept change.

Mystery remains.

Hi John,

Most likely someone overtyped the SEQ fields or converted them to plain text via Ctrl-Shift-F9.

Cheers
--
macropod
[MVP - Microsoft Word]
-------------------------

Thanks for the response, but no it doesn't help. I used "strikethrough"
instead of hidden, and the field still just disappears.

I have tried creating a simple new document and putting SEQ fields in it,
and don't seem to get the problem. Strange then that the problem has crept
into about 20 large documents we have.

 

[Stefan Blom]

Can you reproduce the behavior in other documents?

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP


in message

I wish.

The are not plain text - they are functioning correctly.

They only get deleted when doing accept change.

Mystery remains.

Hi John,

Most likely someone overtyped the SEQ fields or converted them to plain
text via Ctrl-Shift-F9.

Cheers
--
macropod
[MVP - Microsoft Word]
-------------------------

Thanks for the response, but no it doesn't help. I used "strikethrough"
instead of hidden, and the field still just disappears.

I have tried creating a simple new document and putting SEQ fields in
it,
and don't seem to get the problem. Strange then that the problem has
crept
into about 20 large documents we have.

:

In the Track Changes Options dialog box, make sure that deleted items
are
*not* formatted as hidden. Does that help?

Also, note that Word will display updated SEQ fields as deleted and
reinserted; this is normal behavior (until you accept changes and turn
off
the tracking).

--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP


in message
We have long used SEQ field codes as variables in word documents -
primarily
for the purpose of controlling page numbering (as described in
various kb
articles).

There appears to be a major issue crept in to Word 2007 in that when
using
"Accept Changes", all SEQ field codes within the area of acceptance
are
deleted!

This first came to light when a colleague started on a new revision
of a
document and used "accept all changes" on the previously published
revision -
all of the SEQ field codes in the document were deleted. I have
since
experimented using "Accept Change" on various parts of the document,
and
SEQ
codes within the acceptance area are deleted.

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Hi John,

Are the fields gone or just the content turned to blank (Alt+F9 to toggle field codes? Are these field codes in the header/footer
area in Word 2007 and if so, are they within a table cell?

If you use Word 2007 options (Alt, F, I, D) and turn on the
'update fields before printing'
and use Print preview before accepting the tracked changes do you get the same result?

================
I wish.

The are not plain text - they are functioning correctly.

They only get deleted when doing accept change.

Mystery remains. >>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[John F]

Thanks for the continued interest. My reply may be a bit lengthy. To set the
scene, variables occur in the following 3 places:

A. At start of document part to initialise 2 SEQ variables. The field codes
are embedded in plain text.

B. At start of document sub-part to set the variables. The field codes are
embedded after the text in a numbered heading style which is contained in a
table row.

C. In the footer to display the correct sub-part page number.

The field codes in (C) have never disappeared - they just get to display the
wrong page numbers because either A or B or both disappear.


--------

Tried the following

1. Set Word options as you suggested.
2. Ran Print Preview, page numbering in Print Preview correct.
3. Saved document.
4. ran Print Preview again - still OK.
5. Did "Accept all Changes in Document".
6. Ran Print Preview - page numbering gone to pot. On investigation A & B
had disappeared.
7. Reopened document saved at (3), ran Print Preview - page numbering
incorrect!
8. On investigation, field codes (A) end curly brackets had disappeared! Got
them back by right-click and Edit Field.
9. Saved Document.
10. Ran Print Preview - page numbering wrong, Ran Print Preview again, page
numbering correct.
11. saved and closed document, opened again. Field codes OK this time (curly
brackets all there). Print Preview OK.
12. Did "Accept all Changes". All Field codes (B) disappeared, but A still
there this time.

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Hi John,

If you can set a blog/webpage link to the file that could be helpful.

============
Thanks for the continued interest. My reply may be a bit lengthy. To set the
scene, variables occur in the following 3 places:

A. At start of document part to initialise 2 SEQ variables. The field codes
are embedded in plain text.

B. At start of document sub-part to set the variables. The field codes are
embedded after the text in a numbered heading style which is contained in a
table row.

C. In the footer to display the correct sub-part page number.

The field codes in (C) have never disappeared - they just get to display the
wrong page numbers because either A or B or both disappear. >>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[John F]

Bob,

The offending file is directly downloadable from
http://rapidshare.com/files/109519488/MP.525A.ACS.ISS2B1.docx

The fun starts in Part B of the document.

for reference I've also made available an original Word2003 ".doc" version
(which still seems to perform OK in 2007, although I've not tried
exhaustively).
http://rapidshare.com/files/109519887/525A_MP_Master_1-0.doc

Thanks

John F

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Hi John,

Well this is an interesting file. I'm still looking at them to see if I can spot what is causing the differences, but I have noticed that the changes listed if I open the .docX file in Word 2003 vs opening it in Word 2007 are *not* identical.

For example: Using as a discussion reference point -
'Chapter 56 - Windows' (which for me is on page 48 when Alt+F9 is toggled to show codes)

With Alt+F9 showing the field codes turned on and using Balloons to show the changes, and 'Final Showing markup view'

In Word 2003: there are no 'deletion' entries shown.

In Word 2007: For the unnamed reviewer two deletions are shown, both closing field brackets "}"

So that in Word 2003 the document shows the following (red are parens, not field braces)

CHAPTER 56 - Windows { SEQ pgVar2 \h\r { SEQ pgVar1 \c } } { SEQ pgVar1 \h \r { = ({ SECTIONPAGES } + { SEQ pgvar2 \c })} }

But in Word 2007 it shows the same item differently (The X marks where a closing field brace is listed as deleted)

CHAPTER 56 - Windows { SEQ pgVar2 \h\r { SEQ pgVar1 \c } X { SEQ pgVar1 \h \r { = ({ SECTIONPAGES } + { SEQ pgvar2 \c )) }X

Because of that in Word 2007 the {SEQ} fields are unbalanced 6 opening braces, 4 closing.
When All changes are accepted in the .docX file in Word 2003, where the SEQ fields are balanced, all of the fields are retained. When all changes are accepted in Word 2007, where the fields are unbalanced, the SEQ fields are deleted. If, in Word 2007 I reject just the two field brace closing deletions and then Accept all of the changes the SEQ fields are retained.

Word 2007 has an AutoFormat setting (Alt, T, A) to match parentheses but it doesn't seem to do the same for field braces. When using Print preview, even with 'update fields' turned on, Word doesn't seem to 'notice' the imbalance, likely as the changes haven't been finalized.

==============
Bob,

The offending file is directly downloadable from
http://rapidshare.com/files/109519488/MP.525A.ACS.ISS2B1.docx

The fun starts in Part B of the document.

for reference I've also made available an original Word2003 ".doc" version
(which still seems to perform OK in 2007, although I've not tried
exhaustively).
http://rapidshare.com/files/109519887/525A_MP_Master_1-0.doc

Thanks

John F>>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Hi John,

Can you tell me what the lineage is for both the .doc and .docx versions of the two documents from the links? (i.e. what version of
Word was used to create them an update them over time and are the specific linked documents ones that were worked on in more than
one version of Word for tracked revisions?

===========
Bob,

The offending file is directly downloadable from
http://rapidshare.com/files/109519488/MP.525A.ACS.ISS2B1.docx

The fun starts in Part B of the document.

for reference I've also made available an original Word2003 ".doc" version
(which still seems to perform OK in 2007, although I've not tried
exhaustively).
http://rapidshare.com/files/109519887/525A_MP_Master_1-0.doc

Thanks

John F >>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[John F]

Bob,

thank you for your continued interest, and apologies for not reponding
earlier (I've been away).

The document was definitely created originally in Word 2003 - summer 2006 I
think.

Unfortunately, I cannot say for sure if the .docx was a migration/conversion
or a "new document". At one point I was so frustrated with the field codes
issue that I copied text from 2003 doc and pasted into a new 2007 docx,
formatted then added the filed codes again. I have 10 or so of this document
type, and can't remember for this particular one. However, they all display
the same problem.

John