Hi Paul,
I'm sure that I (and probably Martin or Jesper) would be able to work on
this, provided you got a new fields definition relatively soon.
I actually have MSWord fields importing just fine right now. I don't know
much about RTF fields, however.
>Thus, I should ask -- if I invest the time needed to revive all my design
>notes on what those more extensive changes would entail, would there be
>anyone able to do anything with them?
Please do.
>Adding a whole bunch of specific field definitions is easy (with either
>design) -- the hard work is the surgery to the PT and layout editing logic
>to swap the underlying processing models.
You've nailed this on the head.
>Our other alternative is to stick with the current design for 1.0, then
>introduce incompatible changes for version 2.0 of the file format. That
>idea makes me cringe, but I really can't afford the time to implement a
>complete fix myself.
Both ideas make me cringe. The options really are:
1) Redesign fields after 1.0 and introduce incompatible changes to the file
format (but that's partially why we change major version numbers, isn't
it?).
2) Break it now and in doing so, break all of the existing documents
I'm leaning toward doing #1 rather than #2, and it appears that your
feelings are the opposite. I'm flexible, though.
Dom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
