BD> We've taken the approach that we will adapt our 
 BD> document styles to those which are supported by 
 BD> standard methods in Word.  Our interest is in 
 BD> production efficiency with reasonably attractive 
 BD> document format.  
  
I'm usually in a position where someone says "I want this" and it's my job to 
do what he or she wants, not to say "you can't have what you want."  That's 
especially true now that I'm freelancing.  I've had to balance my own 
preferences as template manager very carefully against the preferences of the 
people who are not only paying the bills, but will have to work with said 
template both during the project and once I'm gone.
  
That said, this particular issue -- having the chapter and page number in the 
table of contents -- is so incredibly standard that there are field codes to 
deal with it in headers and footers.  That's why I find it so aggravating to 
not be able to do it in the ToC.
  
 BD> That was one of the advantages that I saw in Word's 
 BD> relative inflexibility compared to Wordperfect.  
 BD> Wordperfect lets you tweak and do almost anything.  
 BD> This led to a lot of "frittering" by people with low 
 BD> word processing skills. 
  
I don't have the WordPerfect mentality at all, since I haven't used it for 
over five years.  (I used to be a WP 5.1 maven, and was very embarrassed to 
have to ask someone recently what the "exit" key was in WordPerfect.)
  
 BD> I perceive that your objectives are more toward 
 BD> absolute control over the document format.  In that 
 BD> case, Word can certainly be frustrating.
I think my objectives tend to be based on the fact that people bring me 
projects, and I try to do what they ask as elegantly as possible.  
Admittedly, I'm the sort who will spend an hour writing a macro to save ten 
minutes' worth of work -- the theory is that those ten minutes will recur and 
turn into one minute every subsequent time.  Doesn't always work that way, of 
course.
--- Sirius 1.0ya
---------------