Unexpected problem with straddling table cells

[Pat Christenson]

Hi and thanks to all who replied -

Several people suggested it would be easier to just put the word 
"Caution" in the autonumbering field and yes, that is the way we're 
going to have to go. But it's not quite as simple as that. Here's how 
the tables are set up:

First cell: Icon tagged "CautionIcon"
Second cell: Paragraph tagged "CautionHead"
Third cell: Paragraph tagged "Body"

Since straddling the 2nd & 3rd cell makes the "CautionHead" disappear, 
we're left with a "Body" paragraph. As you can imagine, this is used in 
lots of places, not just in Caution tables so it looks like we're going 
to have to create a new tag "CautionText" with the word "Caution" in 
the autonumbering field and apply that on a case-by-case basis when 
converting to the new templates. Very tedious. If anyone knows of a way 
around this, please let me know.

Thanks.

Pat Christenson

On Nov 16, 2006, at 5:13 PM, pxenson at comcast.net wrote:

> A client's template currently has Cautions formatted as a three-cell 
> table: The
> Caution icon (in a reference) frame is in the first cell, the word 
> "Caution" (in
> the Autonumbering field of the CautionHead) is in the second, and the 
> writer
> types text in the third.
>
> They want to change to a two-cell table with the icon in the first 
> cell and the
> word "Caution" as a run-in head in the second cell along with the text.
>
> Here's the strange behavior: When you change the CautionHead paragraph 
> to a
> run-in head and straddle the two cells, the run-in head disappears. 
> I'm guessing
> this is because technically that paragraph is empty, having no 
> manually entered
> text, just the word "Caution" from the autonumbering field.
>
> I realize there are other ways to achieve the same look but if the 
> run-in head
> wasn't destroyed by straddling the cells, it would be simpler to 
> convert
> existing Cautions to the new format. Any ideas on how I can get this 
> to work?
>