 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Word / Page Layout / July 2007Why use Continuous Section Breaks always instead of Next Page?
I once worked in Word Processing Centers and their template used only Continuous Section Breaks after their Section 1 section - NEVER Next Page section breaks. I never asked why, and now I need to set up a template for someone. I set it up with a "Section 1" (before which is Front Cover, TOC etc.) and then continuous, same as previous section breaks (with different first page for Section Headers) following on from this for each regular section. The page title style on each page has a "page break before" it. Everything works hunky-dory, but the person asked me why they shouldn't use Next Page section breaks. I told them it was for copying and pasting between their (often huge) reports - to preserve the page numbering and headers and footers etc. I also think that Next Page breaks include the phantom space at the top of the page that you get with hard page breaks. However, truthfully, I'm not sure. What's the answer - why did I get taught originally to do it this way? Are there any advantages to doing it the way I did it? Is this an "old" way of thinking - were there corruption issues with it that newer versions of Office have now cleared up? We are using Office 2003. I don't see why continuous sections should be "better" than the other types... I do see a problem with them: usually, the first page header (and footer) of such a section is hidden, unless the section break happens to be at the end of a page. For more on sections, see http://word.mvps.org/faqs/formatting/WorkWithSections.htm.  SignatureStefan Blom Microsoft Word MVP >I once worked in Word Processing Centers and their template used only > Continuous Section Breaks after their Section 1 section - NEVER Next Page [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "old" way of thinking - were there corruption issues with it that newer > versions of Office have now cleared up? We are using Office 2003. Thanks for the reply. I had read all the articles on the mvp site on section breaks (and templates) before creating the template. My reasoning was that as section "types" read forward, then as users will move things around within documents created in this template, then they will never lose the formatting or headers and footers if everything is the same type of section break. For example if they move a two column page (made with two continuous section breaks) to before a "next page" section break, then the last continuous section break of the two columns will take on the format of a Next Page section break, and insert a blank page - therefore messing up their pagination. However, if the section ends on a continuous section break as you said, then headers and footers are included and everything reads as normal. As long as I have a "Section 1" where everything is set and that never moves, then it seems to work fine no matter what I do. I just wanted a reason behind what I had been taught back in the late 90s which seemed contrary to everything I'd been hearing and reading now. I guess the best way to do it is to double check by creating a quick template with a mix of section styles and see how that functions as I cut and paste, move things around and insert things into it from other files. Cheers for all the help. > I don't see why continuous sections should be "better" than the other > types... I do see a problem with them: usually, the first page header (and [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > "old" way of thinking - were there corruption issues with it that newer > > versions of Office have now cleared up? We are using Office 2003. Now I see your point... Indeed, if the sections share all other properties, then the type will be crucial, of course. In other words, what you are saying is this: "Since the type of section for (say) text columns added to the selection will always be Continuous, let's make all sections that type." A different approach would be not to insert the "main" section breaks (the ones between chapters) until editing is complete. That way, it will be less likely that things get messed up, regardless of how many people edit the document. SignatureStefan Blom Microsoft Word MVP > Thanks for the reply. I had read all the articles on the mvp site on > section [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >> > "old" way of thinking - were there corruption issues with it that newer >> > versions of Office have now cleared up? We are using Office 2003. Yes - exactly. Thanks very much for confirming it - my approach seemed so contrary to everything I was reading, even in the manuals for law firms and complex Word templates. I can now show my boss something more than my shaky conviction! The other approach would work too, but I don't think it's good for us as documents are never "final" really - there will always be users who will take elements of previous documents for new ones, rather than build from scratch. Thanks again. > Now I see your point... Indeed, if the sections share all other properties, > then the type will be crucial, of course. In other words, what you are [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > >> > "old" way of thinking - were there corruption issues with it that newer > >> > versions of Office have now cleared up? We are using Office 2003. But note that using old documents as a starting point for new ones is not the best approach. In the long run, it contributes to document corruption. If some portions of text must be reused, you can store them as AutoText entries instead. SignatureStefan Blom Microsoft Word MVP > Yes - exactly. Thanks very much for confirming it - my approach seemed so > contrary to everything I was reading, even in the manuals for law firms and [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > >> > "old" way of thinking - were there corruption issues with it that newer > > >> > versions of Office have now cleared up? We are using Office 2003.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.