I'm translating a book and the original has the following headers:




My level 3 numbering uses ^1.^2.^#
What happens is that, since ther's no 3.1, the numbering starts from the last level 2 title used (1.3), this way:


Is there anything I can do save a white-on-white 3.1 (that ruins my automatic summary) or faking it with a dangerous 3.1.^# title style?

  • Why do you not add a new chapter 3.1 and remark in a footnote that you added a missing chapter line ... Then numbering is working. For me there theems to be an error in the original book you can correct. – Mensch Jan 19 '15 at 10:17
  • @Kurt No, there's no error in the original source. Each new level is used to talk about things at a different depth and this is a depth 3 thing directly nested under the depth 1 thing, unlike the others that are nested under depth 2 things. – Zachiel Jan 20 '15 at 18:32
  • 1
    Actually, it does break the pattern. This kind of paragraph numbering isn't supposed to go from level 1 to level 3 without a level 2. If I were editing this book, I would have flagged it, and made the author put a level 2 thing in. You might have to do your non-automatic work around and delete the invisible 3.1 header manually from your summary/contents. Is there a way to reset the counters at the beginning of chapter 3? (I know there is in FrameMaker, but I haven't done multichapter books in InDesign yet) – Voxwoman Jan 30 '15 at 17:23

I recently found a solution.

What I did was creating a paragraph style that has the same characteristics as my subchapter heading including the numbering. It draws from the same numbering list (chapters), it restarts numbering after every higher heading and it is the same level as the subchapter numbering.
It is paper color, so not to get printed, and it takes 0 space because of its spacing, but the automatic indexing doesn't pick it up because it looks for specific styles and this style I just created, while modifying the chapter numbering progression just like the subchapter heading, is not in the list.

  • Since nobody replied yet I'm accepting my own workaround. I'm going to unaccept it and accept someone else's if a better solution comes in. – Zachiel Jul 18 '15 at 13:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.