The numbering of the record fields is bothering me. Right now to do anything, I have to look up the field in the word8.html file, then I have to find the field that matches it in the <record>.java file. Then do what I want with it. This seems like a waste of time to me.
We could name the fields what M$ names them in the html file. We could still number them based on their offset. It solves the problem of duplicates and saves time by allowing us to work from the html file. IMHO we shouldn't use the field name to give a detailed description. It makes me wince when I see a 25 character variable name. We have a detailed reference (word8.html) that describes every field and its size (ushort, short, long, etc.). Even with the current numbering and naming scheme, anyone working on this project is going to become intimately familiar with the word8.html file. Its redundant. Thats my two cents Ryan
