Numbering resets to 0 on printing long document

[Guest]

Our word processors are using a single document and inserting templates
and/or documents into it as they transcribe a series of reports and
correspondence. Some of the templates and words have numbered sequences in
them. (No, we're not using sections, just page breaks, and manually
inserting headers for second pages as needed.) The typists are careful to
restart numbering in lists whenever needed. When the documents are printed
the first time, they come out fine. When they are printed the SECOND time,
however, the last page containing a numbered list comes out with all the
numbers as 0, instead of the way it appeared the first time printed. Can
anybody help?

 

[Cindy M.]

Hi =?Utf-8?B?c3d0cGF0b290eQ==?=,

I'm not really an expert on numbering, and I've never heard of this particular
problem. But since you haven't gotten a reply yet, I'll give it a go (and
maybe someone else with an idea will see this when it bubbles back to the top
of the list).

Make a copy of the document, in case something goes wrong with our tests.

1. If you delete this last section of numbering, will the rest of the document
print correctly every time?

2. Is this numbering "Auto numbering" or does it use fields (such as SEQ or
ListNum)?

3. Is the problem happening with only the one file, or with most/all of the
files you generate in this manner?

4. Does the problem occur only with text you're pulling in from one source? Or
is it just generally the last set of numbering in the document?

5. Have you tried printing to a totally different kind of printer, to make
sure it's not a problem with the printer?

6. Which version of Word are we dealing with?

Our word processors are using a single document and inserting templates
and/or documents into it as they transcribe a series of reports and
correspondence. Some of the templates and words have numbered sequences in
them. (No, we're not using sections, just page breaks, and manually
inserting headers for second pages as needed.) The typists are careful to
restart numbering in lists whenever needed. When the documents are printed
the first time, they come out fine. When they are printed the SECOND time,
however, the last page containing a numbered list comes out with all the
numbers as 0, instead of the way it appeared the first time printed.

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

 

[Guest]

1. If you delete this last section of numbering, will the rest of the
document
print correctly every time?
No, the problem migrates so that the last section of numbering comes out
with 0's.

2. Is this numbering "Auto numbering" or does it use fields (such as SEQ or
ListNum)?
It's from the list numbering under Bullets and Numbering.

3. Is the problem happening with only the one file, or with most/all of the
files you generate in this manner?
Files are generated by using a single document and inserting templates or
documents, all with page breaks between the different letters or reports.
I'm still trying to narrow down whether it only occurs with a particular
template. I'm not the one who does the printing. I'm just the one who knew
to come here with my question

4. Does the problem occur only with text you're pulling in from one source?
Or
is it just generally the last set of numbering in the document?
Documents with this problem have been created by several different
transcriptionists. The templates and documents inserted generally came from
the same source when they were created, but since then they've been modified
by the various transcriptionists. And it only occurs with the last set of
numbering in the document.

5. Have you tried printing to a totally different kind of printer, to make
sure it's not a problem with the printer?
No, since I'm not the one printing them. I will pass this question on to
the person doing the printing.

6. Which version of Word are we dealing with?
Several versions of Word, from 2000 to 2003, as far as I can tell.

Thanks for your efforts. I hope someone can help me figure this out.

 

[Cindy M.]

Hi =?Utf-8?B?c3d0cGF0b290eQ==?=,

1. If you delete this last section of numbering, will the rest of the
document
print correctly every time?
No, the problem migrates so that the last section of numbering comes out
with 0's.

2. Is this numbering "Auto numbering" or does it use fields (such as SEQ or
ListNum)?
It's from the list numbering under Bullets and Numbering.

OK, it will help if you're able to narrow down which documents/templates may
be passing along the "bad voodoo". At this point, I doubt I'll be able to help
you eradicate the problem - perhaps when we know more about where it's coming
from. For the moment, we'll need to concentrate on trying to get rid of it.

First, some general observations: The "auto numbering" being used is not known
for reliability or stability. The situation becomes even more volatile when
documents are being shared between various versions of Word. The problem is
exacerbated when auto numbering is being pulled in from multiple sources. And
it can be aggravated even further if the Normal.dot on the individual computer
is damaged at all, as well.

For what you all are doing, the best approach would be (would have been) to
create a single template that contains all the possible formatting and
numbering. Create each individual document from this template. That way, you
could be sure they share a common base, reducing the possibility of conflicts.

Suggestion for trying to "clean up" the current problem: Use a machine with
Word 2003. Save the document as XML, close it, open it and print. Is the
problem still there, or has it been "shaken out"?

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

 

[Guest]

Cindy, I passed on your suggestions to the lady who handles the printing and
collation of the final documents, and here's what she said:
"I tried the suggestion about renaming to xml and it printed okay that way
so renaming the file is probably the easiest solution at this point. FYI, I
print in reverse order so actually the 0-0-0 numbers are the FIRST ones to be
printed."

So we have a workaround solution for now. But I wanna know WHY it worked.

 

[Cindy M.]

Hi =?Utf-8?B?c3d0cGF0b290eQ==?=,

I passed on your suggestions to the lady who handles the printing and
collation of the final documents, and here's what she said:
"I tried the suggestion about renaming to xml and it printed okay that way
so renaming the file is probably the easiest solution at this point. FYI, I
print in reverse order so actually the 0-0-0 numbers are the FIRST ones to be
printed."

Ah. I vaguely remember something about this, but the details don't bubble up
today...

So we have a workaround solution for now. But I wanna know WHY it worked.

Right <g> Documents tend to accumulate "sludge" in the binary file format.
Unlike WordPerfect, Word doesn't store each and every formatting command, etc.
in the text flow. Instead, it maintains tables of information, with pointers in
the text flow. On occasion, the pointers unlink from the original information,
or even get linked to the wrong part of the table. That kind of thing. The user
perceives this as "document corruption".

When you save Word to another file format a converter comes into play. It works
through the binary file format and writes the desired format. If the converter
comes across unlinked entries or other things that don't "rhyme", it will
generally throw them out or at least bring them to the surface where you can do
something about it.

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

 

[Guest]

I used the YES box to say the post was helpful, but I wanted to come back and
say thank you for sticking with me and being so helpful. I really appreciate
it.

 

[Cindy M.]

Hi =?Utf-8?B?c3d0cGF0b290eQ==?=,

I wanted to come back and
say thank you for sticking with me and being so helpful. I really appreciate
it.

You're quite welcome

-- Cindy Meister