[comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc] Word Perfect 5.1 question -- running headers/footers

wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) (10/06/90)

I have a question about WordPerfect 5.1 for the PC.  I am considering
buying WP, but I want to know the answer to this question first.

Suppose I am writing a book, with chapters and sections within chapters.

I want to have the chapter name, and also the section name, included as
part of a "running header" and/or "running footer" on each page.

I would like to do this by defining a "paired style" for the chapter
name -- and another, similar paired style for the section name -- which
will automatically insert the chapter and section names into my running
headers/footers as desired.

I do =not= want to define a brand-new, complete running header or footer
all over again each time a new chapter or section starts.  Not only am I
not willing to do all that typing, but I want to be able to define the
layout of the running header/footer just once -- and be able to change
the layout just once if necessary, and have the change take effect
throughout the entire document (but with the appropriate chapter and
section names in each occurrence of the header/footer).  I want to just
type the chapter/section name, and invoke the appropriate paired style
around the name, and nothing else.

Is it possible to do this in WP 5.1 by means of paired styles?  If so,
could someone please send me e-mail with a basic description of how this
can be done?  Or, if it cannot be done via paired styles but can be done
in some other way, please let me know that.

--
-- Rich Wales <wales@CS.UCLA.EDU> // UCLA Computer Science Department
   3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, CA 90024-1596 // +1 (213) 825-5683
   "I do not know.  I have never done this before."

peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/07/90)

In article <39830@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:
> not willing to do all that typing, but I want to be able to define the
> layout of the running header/footer just once -- and be able to change
> the layout just once if necessary, and have the change take effect
> throughout the entire document ...

Score one for old-fashioned document processors like troff and TeX.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com

ariel@seer.UUCP (Catherine Hampton) (10/08/90)

Yes, it can be done, provided you do not need to typeset your document
book-style with facing pages.

WordPerfect has a dual set of both headers and footers, which are referred
to as Header A and Header B (and Footer A and Footer B).  To do what you
suggested, just define Header A as your document header, and define Header
B as the subdivision header.  WordPerfect will change Header B each time
you define a new header code.

Then, when you edit, if you want to change the document header portion
just edit Header A, and that header will change throughout the document.
If you just want to change a subdivision header, edit the correct Header B
code.

Problem with this is that, if you want mirroring headers on facing pages, 
you can't do it because WordPerfect supports only two headers at a time.

I'd like to suggest that, if you're actually doing a large book, you look
into Word for Windows or Microsoft Word, though.  I've just finished 
putting a 300+ page manual in WordPerfect with a ton of graphics, master-
document structure, and a bunch of fancy formatting.  The program worked
fine as planned, but because WordPerfect 5.1 has a bug in handling EMS and
XMS memory, it hung or crashed the 386-25 and 286-20 at work constantly
when anyone attempted to edit or print the entire document at once instead
of by sections.  And, unfortunately, for some of WordPerfect's best
features to work, you have to edit the thing at once.

Cathy

kooijman@duteca (Richard Kooijman) (10/09/90)

peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <39830@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:
>> not willing to do all that typing, but I want to be able to define the
>> layout of the running header/footer just once -- and be able to change
>> the layout just once if necessary, and have the change take effect
>> throughout the entire document ...

>Score one for old-fashioned document processors like troff and TeX.
>-- 

Or Lotus Manuscript.
This is a great wordprocessor which has several capabilities, that WP and WfW
have included only recently.
Why is it so impopular? It has a formula editor, table editor etc. You can 
include pictures, size them in Manuscript etc.

Richard.

kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) (10/09/90)

In article <YM86RS5@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <39830@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> wales@valeria.cs.ucla.edu (Rich Wales) writes:
>> not willing to do all that typing, but I want to be able to define the
>> layout of the running header/footer just once -- and be able to change
>> the layout just once if necessary, and have the change take effect
>> throughout the entire document ...

>Score one for old-fashioned document processors like troff and TeX.
>Peter da Silva.   `-_-'

Hey Peter, just 'cause WP doesn't do something that any word processor
in its right mind aught to do is no reason to slam the entire evolution
of word processing.  In case you didn't realize

:: -- )))))

In fact, Lotus Manuscript does this quite nicely and elegantly.  No
trouble at all.  In fact its so simple I can hardly believe that WP
does not yet have this 'feature'.

Kevin
-- 
Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University 
UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc
Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA

nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) (10/09/90)

In article <1076@duteca.UUCP> kooijman@duteca (Richard Kooijman) writes:
>peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>Or Lotus Manuscript.
>This is a great wordprocessor which has several capabilities, that WP and WfW
>have included only recently.
>Why is it so impopular? 

IMHO, for a simple reason: Tech support and learning curve. WP has an
edge over all the other editors: 800 free line. No matter what 
kind of a problem you run into, there is a human person to help
you. Best feature, ever.

Sprint seems to be a great editor. vi probably is, even though it has
a rather unique or peculiar set-up, so is Emacs. The biggest problems
with these editors is their biggest asset: hard learning curve, no
context-sensitive help, and above all, no menu. Fast and dirty.

Not for every one.

>It has a formula editor, table editor etc. You can 
>include pictures, size them in Manuscript etc.
>
>Richard.

Eventually, all the editors will have more or less the same
features. Tech support will be the cutting edge.

--Naji.
-- 
         ---------------+-------------------------------------------
        | Naji Mouawad  |       nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu         |
        |  University   |-------------------------------------------|
        | Of Waterloo   | "Thanks God, we cannot prove He Exists."  |

epeterso@houligan.encore.com (Eric Peterson) (10/10/90)

nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) writes:

| In article <1076@duteca.UUCP> kooijman@duteca (Richard Kooijman) writes:
| >peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
| >
| >Or Lotus Manuscript.
| >This is a great wordprocessor which has several capabilities, that WP and WfW
| >have included only recently.
| >Why is it so impopular? 
| 
| IMHO, for a simple reason: Tech support and learning curve. WP has an
| edge over all the other editors: 800 free line. No matter what 
| kind of a problem you run into, there is a human person to help
| you. Best feature, ever.

Definitely.  You can't beat toll-free 1-800 support.

| Sprint seems to be a great editor. vi probably is, even though it has
| a rather unique or peculiar set-up, so is Emacs. The biggest problems
| with these editors is their biggest asset: hard learning curve, no
| context-sensitive help, and above all, no menu. Fast and dirty.

[[ "vi probably is ... a great editor"?! 8-P ]]

No menu?  Read the subject line again -- WP 5.1 has menu and mouse
support included.

| Not for every one.

Vi is definitely not for everyone.
--
       Eric Peterson <> epeterson@encore.com <> uunet!encore!epeterson
   Encore Computer Corp. * Ft. Lauderdale, Florida * (305) 587-2900 x 5208
Why did Constantinople get the works? Gung'f abobql'f ohfvarff ohg gur Ghexf.

peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (10/10/90)

In article <345@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) writes:
> Hey Peter, just 'cause WP doesn't do something that any word processor
> in its right mind aught to do is no reason to slam the entire evolution
> of word processing.

Sure it is. Next time it will be something else. Basically, a procedural
language is more versatile than a strictly table-driven formatter. And
of course it's harder to use. You gets what you pay (in terms of learning
time, in this case) for.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.   'U`
peter@ferranti.com

kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) (10/10/90)

In article <1990Oct9.154215.21515@water.waterloo.edu> nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) writes:
>In article <1076@duteca.UUCP> kooijman@duteca (Richard Kooijman) writes:
>>Or Lotus Manuscript.
>>This is a great wordprocessor which has several capabilities, that WP and WfW
>>have included only recently.
>>Why is it so impopular? 
>
>IMHO, for a simple reason: Tech support and learning curve. WP has an
>edge over all the other editors: 800 free line. No matter what 
>kind of a problem you run into, there is a human person to help
>you. Best feature, ever.
>
Lotus Manuscript has a toll free tech support line, at least in Canada.
I have always found them to be extremely knowledgable and helpful.  I
have to go through their telephone routing system but I know it well
enough by now that it's become passe.  On ething I really like is that
the toll free number gives me access to all of Lotus' products.  Thus,
I save up my questions and get them all answered at once.  I do own a
lot of Lotus software, Notes is about the only one I don't own.

The best thing that I like about the tech support at the end of the 800
line is that they use their own software and subsequently have an
incredible feel for what it can and can not do. One small problem is
that the tech support people are not always on top of what the rest of
the corp is doing -- what they are really good about is finding out and
gettting back to me.

KEvin
-- 
Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University 
UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc
Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA

kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) (10/10/90)

In article <L:A6AIA@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <345@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) writes:
>> Hey Peter, just 'cause WP doesn't do something that any word processor
>> in its right mind aught to do is no reason to slam the entire evolution
>> of word processing.
>
>Sure it is. Next time it will be something else. Basically, a procedural
>language is more versatile than a strictly table-driven formatter. And
>of course it's harder to use. You gets what you pay (in terms of learning
>time, in this case) for.

No arguments here.  I won't begin to say that table-driven formatter's
are 'better' than procedural languages but we both agree that the
learning curve is much smoother and quicker.  The question becomes one
of how much formatting is required to get the job done.  For the most
part, in most cases, table-driven formatters like Manuscript and Word
Perfect are enough.

My comments in the original were that Lotus Manuscript had quite a
number of capabilities that WP did not have.  I wasn't trying to
compare word proecessors (a la WP, Manuscript etc) with procedural
languages for page layout.

Kevin
-- 
Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University 
UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc}!atha!kevinc
Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA

kooijman@duteca (Richard Kooijman) (10/12/90)

nmouawad@water.waterloo.edu (Naji Mouawad) writes:

>IMHO, for a simple reason: Tech support and learning curve. WP has an
>edge over all the other editors: 800 free line. No matter what 
>kind of a problem you run into, there is a human person to help
>you. Best feature, ever.

Well, the learning curve is far less steep then with WP, I'm sure.
Everything is done with menus (there are shortcuts) and pop-up boxes.
The only problem you have is where to find something. For example, is 
the top margin setting under Global Format or under Page Layout?
This is only a problem for novices and one of the most difficult ones with
Manuscript. Really it is quit easy to use.
Maybe you're referring to release 1 of Manuscript: in this version, everything
was done with backslash commands like TeX. In release 2 everything is done with
tags (Alt-F10). These tags can be applied on text, sections, blocks like all
other commands.

>Eventually, all the editors will have more or less the same
>features. Tech support will be the cutting edge.

I don't think so. Ever heard of tech support for TeX? OK, your colleages can
help you, but you can't bother them all of the time. Still TeX is used
everywhere, and the learning curve is steep!

I think the most used wordprocessor, historically I mean, will win.
Just look at WordPerfect, it has been very user unfriendly untill recently.
Just because it was the best one (or nearly, and with the most features) from   1983 to 1988 (dangerous statement, mind you), it still is on top.
Microsoft Word for Windows is coming though and I think it will win just
because it is easier to use and has a WYSIWYG display.
If Lotus comes out with a improved version of Manuscript (it can't do some
things the others can), I think it can be a winner, if it is marketed right.
I have never seen an add from Lotus about Manuscript, why don't they do that?

Richard.

kusumoto@chsun1.uchicago.edu (Bob Kusumoto) (10/14/90)

kevinc@cs.athabascau.ca (Kevin Crocker) writes:
>Lotus Manuscript has a toll free tech support line, at least in Canada.
>I have always found them to be extremely knowledgable and helpful.  I
>have to go through their telephone routing system but I know it well
>enough by now that it's become passe.  On ething I really like is that
>the toll free number gives me access to all of Lotus' products.  Thus,
>I save up my questions and get them all answered at once.  I do own a
>lot of Lotus software, Notes is about the only one I don't own.

>The best thing that I like about the tech support at the end of the 800
>line is that they use their own software and subsequently have an
>incredible feel for what it can and can not do. One small problem is
>that the tech support people are not always on top of what the rest of
>the corp is doing -- what they are really good about is finding out and
>gettting back to me.

If you ask me, their PROMPT support (its free 1-800 for six months although
I've been noticing that they haven't really enforced this lately) is decent
although they always seem to have to call me back hours later (sometimes days)
to answer my somewhat unique questions about any Lotus product.  The thing
that I hate about manuscript is the virtual memory management control (not
as great as it turns out to be) and its printer drivers (compared to
WordPerfect, it doesn't even come close).

Bob
   Bob Kusumoto                               |    Find the electric messiah!
Internet:  kusumoto@chsun1.uchicago.edu       |          The AC/DC God!
Bitnet:    kusumoto@chsun1.uchicago.bitnet    | - My Life with the Thrill Kill
UUCP:  ...!{oddjob,gargoyle}!chsun1!kusumoto  |   Kult, "Kooler than Jesus"