Corruption Questions

[Joseph N.]

The conventional wisdom is that Word documents corrupt easily due
to the "container" architecture and problems when there are
multiple breaks containing conflicting data. For the same reason,
the conventional wisdom is that the master document system is
flawed. How real are these problems in late versions, say 2002 and
2003? My firm uses Lotus Word Pro, which we find to be as powerful
as Word but more predictable and very stable; but we're considering
switching to Word as part of a data management overhaul in 2005.
Can anyone comment on Word's stability these days?

 

[Jezebel]

'Corrupt easily' is an overstatement. I use W2000 and it's a long time since
I've had a corrupt document. Word's 'Master Document' functionality is
notorious, but that's a fairly arcane requirement anyway, particularly for
office documents; and it has, in any case, improved with later versions.

If you trawl this forum, almost all of the posts about corruption relate to
opening or saving documents directly to/from floppies or autoburn CDs.

 

[Joseph N.]

almost all of the posts about corruption relate to
opening or saving documents directly to/from floppies or
autoburn CDs.

Neglected in my earlier reply to ask about the CD issue. I'm not
familiar with it. Same situation as floppies?

 

[Joseph N.]

Thanks Jez.

'Corrupt easily' is an overstatement.

It's what I've heard, but I have never myself experienced corruption in a Word document. I'm happy to say that I've even figured out the numbering, although that is more of a chore than it should be. Nevertheless, my happy experiences are not enough to justify a switch without checking it out.

Word's 'Master
Document' functionality is notorious, but that's a fairly arcane
requirement anyway, particularly for office documents; and it
has, in any case, improved with later versions.

Not sure I'd agree that it's arcane for office docs, but no matter. I am interested, however, in the degree to which it has stabilized. If anyone has info on the topic, I'd appreciate hearing it.

 

[Jezebel]

Trying to work with a document on a CD on a computer with built-in burning
software can wreck both the document and the CD itself. This is the case
with WP also.

Perhaps there's a terminology issue with 'master document' - in Word it
means a document comprising a set of sub-documents each contained in a
separate file. In my experience that's a very rare requirement in most
corporations; and there have always been better approaches to that sort of
project anyway.

Thanks Jez.



It's what I've heard, but I have never myself experienced corruption in a

Word document. I'm happy to say that I've even figured out the numbering,
although that is more of a chore than it should be. Nevertheless, my happy
experiences are not enough to justify a switch without checking it out.

Not sure I'd agree that it's arcane for office docs, but no matter. I am

interested, however, in the degree to which it has stabilized. If anyone
has info on the topic, I'd appreciate hearing it.

 

[Joseph N.]

'master document' - in Word it
means a document comprising a set of sub-documents each
contained in a separate file. In my experience that's a very
rare requirement in most corporations; and there have always
been better approaches to that sort of project anyway.

Like INCLUDETEXT? Is there something else that works in that
situation?

 

[Jezebel]

INCLUDETEXT is one method. RD fields is another. Or, taking an entirely
different tack -- since the major attraction of the master document approach
is usually to enable multiple users to work on components of the project --
assemble the output in PDF; or simply treat the distinct elements as such.


What situation are you actually referring to?

 

[Joseph N.]

INCLUDETEXT is one method. RD fields is another.

Ah, right. Never quite understood that one, nor needed to, yet anyway....

work on components of the project -- assemble the output in PDF

For some purposes, fine, but, obviously, not for editing.

or simply treat the distinct elements as such.

Some times, that's fine. But for management purposes it's not so good, and for TOC's it doesn't work at all (other than with RD fields).

What situation are you actually referring to?

One situation is that we often have to produce complex agreements that have several distinct parts, some of which are created at various times after the main body has been completed, and all of which must be managed together and held by a common TOC. Another situation is that we often have to produce a new proposal that has some parts which are the same as in previous documents of the same type and some parts which are new.