Word 2003 RTF Mail Merge Data Source Woes...

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Ben - 06 Sep 2004 17:25 GMT

Hi,

We have an application that generates mail merge documents
automatically from RTF templates by writing out the reference to the
CSV data source directly in the RTF document as we create it, then
saving the appropriate CSV file into that location (it has to be done
this way for one reason or another rather than programaticcaly using
VB or anything like that) and finally opening up the RTF file in Word
- which then references the data source CSV file and opens up the
document ready for merging.

This all works really well, or rather it did up until SP1 for W2003
which has seemingly removed the ability of Word to automatically open
up a reference to a data source from an RTF document (if you try the
same thing with a .doc file, it runs an SQL statement to lead in the
data).

Does anyone know whether this is intended behaviour and if so why/ is
there a work around?

As ever, help is very much appreciated. Rock on..

Ben ben.SPAMMENOT.stoneham@fcpl.com

Reply to this Message

Peter Jamieson - 06 Sep 2004 21:57 GMT

You probably need to look at the following knowledgebase article

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;825765

At first sight it may not appear relevant as it discusses sql, but Word uses
an SQL dialect even when it gets data from rtf data sources.

Signature

Peter Jamieson

> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Ben ben.SPAMMENOT.stoneham@fcpl.com

Reply to this Message

Ben - 07 Sep 2004 11:00 GMT

Thanks Peter,

I don't quite get it though, this article refers to stopping the
automatic notification, which to be fair I would be quite happy to
get!

The problem I have is that after SP1 is applied to 2003, the RTF
document no longer automatically references the CSV file at all.
Instead you have to manually browse to it, which won't work in the
context of our application.

Any other thoughts would be welcome.

Ben

> You probably need to look at the following knowledgebase article
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> >
> > Ben ben.SPAMMENOT.stoneham@fcpl.com

Reply to this Message

Peter Jamieson - 10 Sep 2004 22:09 GMT

OK, I misunderstood your message and thought you were using a .rtf as a data
source.

Yes, it looks as if Word now just discards the data source altogether. I'll
report it, but I wouldn't hold your breath for a response.

I suspect that the only way you will make progress on this long term will be
to generate XML (Word ML) instead of RTF, but I haven't even tried that to
see if
a .it works
b. what the ramifications are (e.g. whether user PCs have to have XML
schemas loaded into Word etc.)

Signature

Peter Jamieson

> Thanks Peter,
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> > >
> > > Ben ben.SPAMMENOT.stoneham@fcpl.com

Reply to this Message

Ben - 13 Sep 2004 09:38 GMT

Ouch.. that is going to make life difficult... have any idea why they
would have done this..? - or even if it is a bug perhaps? Thanks for
your help in any case Peter.

> OK, I misunderstood your message and thought you were using a .rtf as a data
> source.
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> > > >
> > > > Ben ben.SPAMMENOT.stoneham@fcpl.com

Reply to this Message

Peter Jamieson - 14 Sep 2004 11:54 GMT

> have any idea why they
> would have done this..?

No, I don't work for MS and can only speculate that this change may have
occurred as a side-effect of a bunch of security-related changes to do with
getting data from outtside Word. Since the { DATA } field is actually a very
old one (it's a relic of the way you used to have to set up mailmerge data
sources) MS may have decided to stop processing it.

> - or even if it is a bug perhaps?

Always possible IMO :-)

Anyway, I have reported it and I may even get a response...

Signature

Peter Jamieson

> Ouch.. that is going to make life difficult... have any idea why they
> would have done this..? - or even if it is a bug perhaps? Thanks for
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> > > > >
> > > > > Ben ben.SPAMMENOT.stoneham@fcpl.com

Reply to this Message