Cross-Reference to Multi-Level Paragraph

Forum|Forum|12 years ago
October 9, 2013
1 reply
2470 views

Hi,

Is it possible to create a cross-reference that does something like this:

'1.B.(1)(a)2) on page XXX' from the following:

I have created a cross-reference format as follows:

<$paranum[1. Heading]><$paranum[A. Text/Heading]><$paranum[(1) Text/Heading]><$paranum[(a) Text/Heading]><$paranum[1) Text/Heading]><$paranum[a) Text/Heading]> on page\ <$pagenum>

This works if I cross-reference from 'text10' to 'text9', which returns - '1.B.(2)(b)2)a) on page 6001',

and 'text10' to 'text2' returns '1.B. on page 6001'.

It fails when I go from 'text10' to 'text13' giving '1.C.(4)(b)2)b) on page 6001' instead of just '1.C. on page 6001'.

Any help on what I'm doing wrong?

This topic has been closed for replies.

__AG__

Participating Frequently

It's the format of your cross-reference. You're explicitly asking for FM to satisfy all of those specific building blocks with that one cross-ref format. IF FM doesn't find a corresponding entry "upstream" from the x-ref target, then it will leave th entrry blank. This is why the text10 to text2 entry appears to work. However, for the text12 entry you have all of the building blocks being satisfied. You'll probably need different x-ref formats depending upon your nesting hierarchy for the targets.

C

c88657860Author

Participating Frequently

Thank you for your answer, I shall have a re-think!

F

FieryPantone

Legend

How the heck is the reader expected to use this sort of heading structure? even if you manage to provide explicit page numbers in your cross-references. I can see you're aiming to say, helpfully, "see 1.C.(4)(b)2)b) on page 6001", but when the poor sap hits page 6001 does he or she then see "1.C.(4)(b)2)b)" or only "b)"? How much navigation also shows up in the header/footer?

I suspect you may be constrained by Higher Powers … if not, perhaps you could experiment with a single visible heading – showing 1.C.4.b.2.b at the lowest level – which would then be amenable to a single cross-reference. I managed to negotiate for something like this with regulatory documents, even if I had to sketch my numbering tree on paper before I could write the single, magnificent definition in FM.

Personally, and as you can tell from my intemperate tone, I also find the plethora of brackets – plus the wilful mix of paired and lone brackets – distressing :-} Apologies if my knee-jerk reaction to this sort of numbering scheme means I have completely and unhelpfully missed the point of your post.

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded