TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: MS Word Master Document From:David Chisma <dchisma -at- retaildir -dot- com -dot- au> To:"'David M. Brown'" <dmbrown -at- brown-inc -dot- com>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:35:09 +1100
David Chisma wrote some more:
Here's the deal on my 180-page Word 2000 manual. It's made of 21 included
files (I use INCLUDETEXT fields to add the text, not RD fields. Word help
says of RD Fields, "Identifies a file to include when you create a table of
contents". In my document using INCLUDETEXT fields, the text of the included
files is imported into the main document, therefore referencing the
documents using RD fields is not needed.
All headers and footers (including page numbers) come from the main document
because the INCLUDETEXT field only includes the text. So, page numbering
isn't a problem. As far as Word is concerned, when generating the TOC and
Index the document *is* a single 180 page document, not 22 separate pieces.
When I make a PDF using Distiller, there is only one fault that I've found:
the generated bookmarks go to the end of the included section, not the
heading at the beginning. However, the bookmarks are easy to re-assign.
Retail Directions Group
dchisma -at- retaildir -dot- com -dot- au
From: David M. Brown [mailto:dmbrown -at- brown-inc -dot- com]
Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2000 14:40
Subject: Re: MS Word Master Document
David Chisma wrote:
> The big advantage using Master doc (or Include fields) is that the
> sub-documents could be edited independently of the main document. If the
> main document is big, Word is slow and falls over easily.
Note that using RD fields yields the same benefits (smaller doc files that
can be edited independently, multiple-file TOC and index).
More important (to me, anyway) is that we're being forced to use the Master
Document "feature" to create PDFs. According to a session leader at the
recent WinWriters convention, Acrobat "handles" multiple-file documents
assembled with the Master Document feature, but not those assembled using RD
Can anyone confirm or (preferably) refute this?
Does anyone want to share any tips in creating PDFs from Word 2000?
David M. Brown - Brown Inc.
dmbrown -at- brown-inc -dot- com
HTML Indexer 3, still the easiest way to create and maintain real
back-of-the-book indexes for web sites and other HTML documents.
Now including options for HTML Help and JavaHelp indexes, too!
Sponsored by Weisner Associates Inc., Online Information Services
Training & consulting for RoboHELP, Dreamweaver, HTML, and HTML-Based Help.
More info at http://www.weisner.com/train/ or mailto:training -at- weisner -dot- com -dot-
Your web site in 32 languages? Maybe not now, but sooner than you think.
Contact ForeignExchange for the FREE paper, "3 steps to successful
translation management" (http://www.fxtrans.com/3steps.html?tw).
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: dchisma -at- retaildir -dot- com -dot- au
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-20649B -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.