
Signature
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Hi Elliott,
> Now the really interesting question is "How did you find out about
> that?"
:-) Trial and error, basically. I've been dealing wth Word fields for 15
years and support in general for a lot longer than that - not a lot to show
for it except lots of snippets like this. But...
a. the "field language" is very poorly specified (well, it's not specified
at all, really), which is probably why its behaviour changes quite radically
each time MS rewrites the relevant portion of Word.
b. even the recent work to codify MS word XML document formats contains
numerous errors of fact and shortcomings when it comes to the "field
language." I've sent off numerous messages to MS in the past, but there you
go.
Since you're obviously dealing with Word fields and mailmerge issues quite a
bit, if you haven't done so already, it's probably worth having a trawl
through the microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields newsgroup. It's very
Windows Word oriented (as am I, if you like) but quite a lot of the info.
there is relevant to Mac as well as PC. The main differences are that
a. Word 2004 is more like Windows Word 2000 in most respects as far as
mailmerge is concerned
b. connectivity on Mac is, in practice, significantly different (no ODBC in
Word 2004, no OLEDB at all, no DDE, no Access, but there is provision for
FileMaker, no Outlook or MAPI, but there is Entourage)
c. The UI is significantly different (DMM v. "Mail Merge Helper" and/or
"Mail Merge Wizard"
d. Windows Word has "field mapping" from "Address fields" to "Database
fields". Not sure Mac has that stuff.
e. No MailMerge events.
> As a side note. It would seem from what you wrote it would be harmless
> to leave the "Suppress Blank Lines in Addresses" enabled if you were
> doing suppression explicitly with the para endings in the IFs. You
> would never give the auto suppressor a chance to do anything. Except
> perhaps bewilder you while debugging.
I suppose this comes down to a choice between a "magic" approach that works
some of the time (perhaps even most of the time) in simple cases, but whose
results can be bewildering, and a more explicit approach where you spell out
using IF fields which lines (or paras :-) ) you want to suppress. IMO if
you're supplying a template or some such that others are able to adapt, it's
probably better to head for the approach that avoids "magic". But in the
end, it's a matter of judgment.
> .. and why "addresses". I guess *that* was meant in an illustrative
> way. It has no way of knowing you are dealing with an address surely?
I think it's in Mac Word's favour that it still calls MailMerge "Data
Merge", and have argued - almost certainly unsuccessfully - that the Windows
version ought to adopt that approach. However, although I don't have any
stats. of my own, I suspect that the vast majority of MailMerge/DataMerge
users are in fact doing small-scale merges that are merges to snailmail
(i.e. to printed documents) and e-mail, at least on Windows, probably using
data stored in an address book of some kind (eiter platform).
The Windows version of Word does have a mapping "layer" that the Mac Word
doesn't, apparently primarily to support its ADDRESSBLOCK and GREETINGLINE
fields. So for example, the Windows version of Word looks for a number of
different field names that look like "FirstName" and tries to "map" the
field name to an internal name that it refers to as an "address" field name.
Unfortuantely, the implementation isn't as complete as it should be, which
makes the whole thing rather less useful than it could be, but referring
back to your original question
a. in theory, Word might decide that it is dealing with an "address" and do
somthing differently as a result
b. in practice, I don't think it does in the "line suppression" department.
>> "Suppress Blank Lines in Addresses" is enabled by default in Word 2004
>> mail
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> .. and why "addresses". I guess *that* was meant in an illustrative
> way. It has no way of knowing you are dealing with an address surely?
Elliott Roper - 30 Oct 2006 00:34 GMT
> Hi Elliott,
>
> > Now the really interesting question is "How did you find out about
> > that?"
>
> :-) Trial and error, basically.
<snip>
Why am I not amazed?
> it's probably worth having a trawl through the
> microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields newsgroup.
Thanks. I will.

Signature
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Peter Jamieson - 30 Oct 2006 01:04 GMT
>> :-) Trial and error, basically.
> <snip>
> Why am I not amazed?
You ask a question. You get an answer. Why on earth would you be amazed?
>> Hi Elliott,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>> microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields newsgroup.
> Thanks. I will.
Elliott Roper - 30 Oct 2006 01:14 GMT
> >> :-) Trial and error, basically.
> > <snip>
> > Why am I not amazed?
>
> You ask a question. You get an answer. Why on earth would you be amazed?
I'm getting answers to rhetorical questions already?
The lack of amazement was caused by the content your excellent answer.
I fully expected that there would be lack of official doco, and that it
would be something of a mess underneath.
;-)

Signature
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Peter Jamieson - 30 Oct 2006 11:19 GMT
Yeah :-) Guess I need an extended break from these groups.
Thinking again - in the cold light of day - about what's in the
microsoft.public.word.mailmerge.fields group, there probably isn't really a
whole lot there to interest a Mac Word user. There are a very large number
of responses along the lines of "to make that work, go back to the way Word
2000 used to do it" which are completely irrelevant to Mac, as are the vast
majority of items concerning connectivity.
Peter Jamieson
>> >> :-) Trial and error, basically.
>> > <snip>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> ;-)