Why does document open in word 97 but not 2003?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Large document containing macros opens successfully with Word 97 but not with
Word 2003. Does not even reach the disable/enable macros stage. None of the
Microsoft suggested reasons seems to apply. New computer, XP with Word 2003
SP1, Office 2003 professional.
 
Could you tell us what you mean when you say it does not open successfully?

Is your macro security in Word 2003 set to high?
--

Charles Kenyon

Word New User FAQ & Web Directory: http://addbalance.com/word

Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of
Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide) http://addbalance.com/usersguide

See also the MVP FAQ: http://www.mvps.org/word which is awesome!
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.
 
The document opens successfully in W2000, but when I open it in W2003, I am
told "Word was unable to read this document. It may be corrupt." (I know it
isn't, the document is exactly the one that W2000 created.) 'Open and repair'
is perfectly able to read the document, but it messes up the subsection
numbering in appendices. I can correct that, but I don't know what else it
has done. It is a nightmare. I can accept a W2003 document being too advanced
for W2000, but not the other way round. W2003 should be benign, and should
not have changed the document. I don't trust it and I need to revert to
W2000, BUT IT'S NO LONGER ON SALE!!!
 
When I said I can correct the section (outline) numbering, please forgive me.
It was the temporary triumph of hope over experience. It looks as though I
have corrected it in one version of the document, but I realise that it may
not survive the first slight breeze. :-) I think I have achieved it by
breaking one of the cardinal rules of outline numbering, but it was broken so
it did need fixing. I will continue to search for a copy of Word 2000.
 
That it opens OK in W2000 but gives W2003 fits may not mean that it is OK in
W2000 but just that W2000 is not detecting corruption that is present.
Outline numbering that is created/applied incorrectly can be a real
headache.

See: How to create numbered headings or outline numbering in your Word
document
http://www.shaunakelly.com/word/numbering/OutlineNumbering.html. (For
bullets see http://www.shaunakelly.com/word/bullets/controlbullets.html, the
subject is related.)

This is based on ...

Word's Numbering Explained
http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/Numbering/WordsNumberingExplained.htm

Additional information you may find useful or need is at:

How to Create a Template, Part II
http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/Customization/CreateATemplatePart2.htm

Legal Numbering
http://www.addbalance.com/usersguide/numbering.htm

Seven Laws of Outline Numbering
http://www.microsystems.com/fra_sevenlawsofoutlinenumbering.htm

The following are some discussions on the Microsoft newsgroups on numbering:
Nightmare on ListNumbering Street <URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=9e790fa7ed2886b3,18&ic=1>
The Joy of Lists <URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=811287ebce8fc203,15&ic=1>
Relinking ListTemplates <URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=2350746054c838e,12&ic=1>
Outline numbering: restart doesn't restart <URL:
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]#p>
Format Doesn't "Hold" <URL:
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]#p>
(above list compiled by Dave Rado, Word MVP)

ListNumbering Street Revisited <URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&safe=off&th=57df77857e4993ce>

See the latest numbering discussion I've seen, especially post #4 which
contains Dave Rado's concise instructions for setting up heading numbering.
<URL:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=bce07d7714769f5c>

BTW, you can probably get W2000 on eBay.
--

Charles Kenyon

Word New User FAQ & Web Directory: http://addbalance.com/word

Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of
Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide) http://addbalance.com/usersguide

See also the MVP FAQ: http://www.mvps.org/word which is awesome!
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.
 
Thanks for your suggestions, I will follow them up, particularly the one
about a source of Word 2000! (Although I thought I had solved the problem by
selecting level 2, and then specifying the style for level 1, guidelines seem
to suggest that shouldn't work.) Still don't understand why W2003 had to
change it, I don't think it was broken. All the rules had been followed on
W2000, I think.
 
Hi =?Utf-8?B?b2xkYmlsbA==?=,
Still don't understand why W2003 had to
change it, I don't think it was broken. All the rules had been followed on
W2000, I think.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, according to your first message, the document was originally created in
Word 97? The current numbering functionality was introduced in that version,
and had some bugs. In the following versions, the Word programmers tried to
reduce the bugs, and get the numbering to behave more predictably. So,
documents created in Word 97 that contain numbering are often considered as
"broken" by newer versions of Word. Word 2000 - falling in an "in-between"
phase, is probably still able to correctly interpret the numbering.

If you can beg or borrow a Word 2000 installation and open the document, try
saving it in RTF and in full HTML format. Then try opening these in Word
2003. With any luck, the "junk" that's keeping Word 2003 from opening the
*.doc file will have been filtered out by the file conversion... and
hopefully you won't lose too much (if any) information.

Cindy Meister
INTER-Solutions, Switzerland
http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Jun 8 2004)
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 :-)
 
Back
Top