Alex brings up a good point. The majority of Word's
MasterDocument bad
rap was from older versions of Word. I had heard that they
did a major
clean up circa Word 2000. Has anyone had personal
experience since that
time, using Master Documents?
Leanne
-----Original Message-----
From: listmaster isiresearchsoft.com
[mailto:listmasterisiresearchsoft.com] On Behalf Of
Alex[listslexial.ca]
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:32 PM
To: Endnote-Interestedcksrhat.isinet.com
Subject: Re: endnote-interest-digest V1 #2094
On Oct 26, 2006, at 14:53, John.Hands[johnjohnhands.com] wrote:
> [...] Elaine's certainly seems the simplest solution
and avoids the
> Master document, which professionals advise against
because it
> corrupts easily. [...]
You should definitely use whatever solution is more
comfortable for you.
And you are right about the Master doc option, its
reputation is very
poor. On the other hand, there are people who've used it
successfully,
that's why I suggested you should research it for yourself.
There are two issues with Elaine's solution. First, it uses
Word's
footnote mechanism. I find it is more work, and has
limitations (for
instance, if you want to insert a footnote which is not a
reference).
Second, I think that anyone who writes a book in Word, and
keeps it all
in a single long document, is asking for trouble. IMHO, the
safest
solution is to keep each chapter in a separate document.
But, again, you
should choose whatever option makes more sense to you.
<0x0192>
|