Difference between Address and Name in a Hyperlink Field?

[ChrisGreaves]

Hello. I should know the answer to this, but either I never did, or else I have forgotten!


My VBA code is to loop through a document converting Hyperlink fields to IncludeText fields. This will unite all my chapters of text into a single book for export.
The screenshot image shows THREE target addresses, all pointing, correctly, to the file "MrPuzeysNephewcolin.doc".




I reason that if there are three places in a hyperlink field, then there must be a reason for each place. That is, each of "Address", "AddressOld" and "Name" must serve a different purpose.


Of course I want to know which of those three will be correct for my purpose; I don't want the VBA code to err a few months down the road because a document arises that triggers a different purpose for my chosen sub-field.


Thanks, Chris

[Guessed]

It isn't immediately apparent how those three differ and you would probably need to ask an old MS engineer why there was once a need for .Address and .AddressOld. It appears that they all stay aligned but only one is editable via vba - both .AddressOld and .Name are read-only properties which change their values by changing .Address.

Sub aa()
  Dim aHL As Hyperlink
  Set aHL = ActiveDocument.Hyperlinks(1)
  aHL.Address = "Hi mum"
  Debug.Print aHL.AddressOld    'a read only property
  Debug.Print aHL.Name          'a read only property
End Sub

I am guessing but suspect the .Name property is relevant only saving the Word document to HTML. The Name attribute of an

<a name="hello">

tag in HTML serves as an anchor (akin to a bookmark in Word) - see Anchor Tags and Name Attributes
By extension, I would hypothesize that .AddressOld comes into play when saving the Word file in a particular file format like RTF.

[ChrisGreaves]

Originally Posted by Guessed

... changing .Address.

Thank you Andrew.
.Address it is for me then.

I must apologize. I am using Word2003, and since that is so out-of-date (as am I) that might have made a difference.

I appreciate your advice, and rather suspect that some inexplicable parts of Word2003 are due to parts of the product being rushed out of the door.
Cheers, and thanks again.
Chris