Merge & Link Fields update correctly in Word 2000, BUT not in Word 2002. HELP !!!

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

BeJay - 21 May 2007 12:15 GMT

Hi - using merge & link fields in Word 2000, fields merge correctly,
updating links as expected in the merged document. Duplicated this in
2002, Merge fields merge correctly, but link fields do not update.

(Link field target file is dependant on the result of a field in the
mail merge, therefore I have been updating the links after doing the
merge, in order for the linked file to come accross correctly)

Anyone familiar with compatibilty problems that might be causing this,
any suggestions of ways round it? Any system settings anyone aware
of?

Hi Peter - if you are there, did you manage to get time to test the
difference between 2000 & 2002?? THANKS IN ADVANCE

Relates to this post:-
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields/browse_thr
ead/thread/aa14958c1b5e2dd4

Reply to this Message

Peter Jamieson - 22 May 2007 09:36 GMT

> Hi Peter - if you are there, did you manage to get time to test the
> difference between 2000 & 2002?? THANKS IN ADVANCE

I haven't forgotten you, but for various reasons it is taking me longer to
get my Win/Office XP virtual machine back up and running than I'd hoped.
Hope to get there today!

Peter Jamieson

> Hi - using merge & link fields in Word 2000, fields merge correctly,
> updating links as expected in the merged document. Duplicated this in
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Relates to this post:-
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields/browse_thr
ead/thread/aa14958c1b5e2dd4

Reply to this Message

BeJay - 22 May 2007 11:27 GMT

On 22 May, 09:36, "Peter Jamieson" <p...@KillmapSpjjnet.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> > Hi Peter - if you are there, did you manage to get time to test the
> > difference between 2000 & 2002?? THANKS IN ADVANCE
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Peter, If you do identify what the issue here is with version
differences, that would be hugely beneficial to my small knowledge
base in this area....... so it would be great if you could tell me
your findings....

HOWEVER - A small Eureka moment:- I have had some success when
retrying the database method.... This didn't seem to work before, but
looking on the MS knowledge base, there was a problem with the way
Links update caused by SP2 on WD2002. So, I have created registry
entry which is supposed to override the "new behaviour" caused by the
service pack. This didn't make my link method work, and would still
not allow any updates on the fields in the post merge document, but
may well have helped with this database method. As you originally
said, it is not ideal because of the formatting issue but it does what
it says on the tin!! THANKS SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR HELP ! :)

Reply to this Message

Peter Jamieson - 22 May 2007 12:02 GMT

Hi BeJay,

I managed to have a look at the Win Xp Office XP combination.

I think you've probably found the same stuff. The problem arises because of
the field updating behaviour that comes either with SP2 or the "SP2 update"
that followed it.

There's a registry setting called FieldCalcSecurityUpdate that controls the
behaviour (see e.g.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/330079

) If you set the value to 2 (the "most secure" value) then the LINK fields
won't update, even though the correct sheet name is in the link field
generated by the merge. I think you need the value to be 0 or 1

I had a feeling it might be related to this but could not remember which
version/SP introduced which behaviour.

Peter Jamieson

> On 22 May, 09:36, "Peter Jamieson" <p...@KillmapSpjjnet.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> said, it is not ideal because of the formatting issue but it does what
> it says on the tin!! THANKS SO MUCH FOR ALL YOUR HELP ! :)

Reply to this Message