visual difference between linked & stored
 

Hi,

Is there a way to easily tell if an external document is linked or stored.

I've been storing Word docs (as RTF), but I'm changing my procedure based on a URP3 behavior: namely that when I create a Word based item in URP3, jump (Ctrl+J) out to Word, create a numbered sequence, come back into URP3 and then jump back out to Word, Word's numbering function isn't the same as I left it.

I can go into detail if desired, but suffice to say, I've tested this a few times to be pretty sure of myself in this.

If, however, I create a Word doc, import it as a *linked* document instead of stored, then whenever I'm in the Word doc, the numbering works as I would expect.

So - this shaggy dog is really about two things: (1) letting me easily see linked or stored and (2) figuring out the numbering functionality between Word and URP3.

Thanks.

Regards,
Bal

The only difference I'm aware of is the stored icon; if engaged = stored. However, icon is so subtle (engaged or not) as to not make much difference so it's of little use IMO.

Re: visual difference between linked & stored
 

The other indicators of a stored document item are
1) [Stored] following item title in Details pane tab
2) Existence of Document Size attribute

It sounds like the difference is that you stored RTF format but linked to a DOC format file. Saving as RTF may lose some formatting made within Word.

Saving Word files in rtf
 

The post set me thinking about the best format normally to save Word files in.

Having played around, it does seem to me that .rtf files provide all the functionality I need most of the time, with the added benefit that they display very easily in UR.

Next off .doc files display quite well. The .docx files do not display well unless one runs Word through UR.

Maybe saving Word files in rtf format is not such a bad idea. And as for .docx, it seems far from obvious that it provides any real "progress" on Microsoft's part, since other users often can't open them and there is far less compatibility....

I use RTF because it enables compatibility almost everywhere (including some HTML editors). Word's proprietary doc and docx formats leave a lot to be desired in this regard.

OK - not a big make or break on telling the difference.

It would be a nice to have though. :)

Regards,
Bal