RE: WP file headers and DPSpool DPSpool doesn't really care whether the WP file header is there or not. If there are WP codes in the header that DPSpool recognizes (such as margin setting codes, etc.), it will apply them. If there are other WP codes in the header that DPSpool doesn't recognize, it should simply ignore them.
My standard operating procedure with DPSpool reports is to have the report initially configured to go to C:\NUL. Then I redirect the output to the desired print job file within the report. Using this method, any WP header auto-generated by DP gets sent to NUL and tossed out before the print job file gets created. So it's really immaterial to DPSpool whether DP creates a WP file header or not. Since having a WP file header is important to users creating merge files, I'm very much in favor of whatever works for them. On a related note: There is a long-known WP-format bug in 2.6x that prevents a ^N code at the end of a line from working properly. When found within a line, ^E ^R and ^N should all be bracketted by hex E1. This is working properly now. However, when one of these codes comes at the very end of a line there should be no bracketting around it so WP can recognize it as a control code. ^E and ^R are being treated properly in this way, but ^N is always bracketted. It would be good if Lew could fix this. Oh, and as for the <u>/<i> question, it would seem that a command line parameter that let you choose which to output would be better than having two separate versions of the program. Tim Rude ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Hancock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dataperfect Users Discussion Group" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [Dataperf] New version of DP on the horizon... > Hi Everyone, > > Thanks for the input, I passed over each of the email I received to Lew (for > some reason he does not get the MailingList emails), and this is his reply: > ________________________________________________________________________ _________ > Hi Brian, > > Thanks for being the focal point of all this -- I know it has taken a lot of > your time. > > I'm not sure how to handle the underline / italics problem. Adding italics > would be a lot of work. I think for now I'll just hand out two versions -- > and users can take their pick! I guess I'll call these DP6YU and DP6YI. If > you have them both, you can feel free to distribute them. I'll send copies > of them to you and Ralph Alvy later on -- right now I'm very tired and I > don't want to make a mistake, so I'll wait a day. > > I'd like to fix the bug Charles Wolf has asked about -- the WP format mode > that puts out the bad header. I added this code because Tim Rude uses it > for spooling DP output to a printer, and it is heavily used. (I think.) I > will gladly change it, but I'm not sure what it needs to be. Perhaps Tim > knows more about this -- can he tell me what's wrong? > > In a couple of trial versions I added the "delete panel data" as an option > and in general it didn't perform any better than a subreport to delete the > data. The only speed improvement is for the cases where you have totals > and/or refential integrity interactions; in those cases if I delete the data > with no interaction, it is much faster and not possible to duplicate in a > report. If there are no panel to panel interactions and no text fields, the > data file can just be deleted and the associated index blocks simply made > available. > > My intial reaction is that this is a dangerous option and not worth making > it part of DP since it takes up a lot of code space real estate. > > The other option of deleting all data in adatabase is cleaner and actually > takes up less space. Since it is very fast and can't be duplicated in > reports, it seems more useful. However, I suspect few people would use it. > > Right now my inclination is to leave these options out unless there is some > user that feels they are critically important. DP is already very complex, > and I don't want to add more complexity that doesn't have a high payoff. > > As soon as I have my wits about me, I'll prepare a package and send it to > you. As I said, feel free to send the versions to anyone that wants them. > > Lew > _________________________________________________ > > On the subject of the output of either <u> or <i> to represent underlining > in a DP memo type field, rather than two independant versions (which would > create a fork in future development), I think that Danny has a good point > about the use of Italics. On modern webpages you rarely see underlined > used as a text decoration, you generally only see bold or italic as simple > decoration; the underline is usually reserved for hyperlinks. Additionally > the <u> has been deprecated in XHTML (probably for that previous reason) and > although all modern browsers accept it as an underline, it is generally > better to use CSS to style underlines, which means that if someone > desperately wanted an underline and all DP was producing was <i> it would > be a simple matter to render that text as underline and not italics. > > I have done a fair bit of testing, and everything seems ok to me, however I > do not use DP in the myriad of ways other would use it, so if you would like > to test this version please send me an email and I will send it to you. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Lew will send the final release in a few days. > > For anyone producing HTML, XHTML or XML I think you will find this version > very worthwhile. For anyone using any type of scriping with DP you should > find this version invaluable. > > Regards > Brian > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dataperf mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf _______________________________________________ Dataperf mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dataperfect.nl/mailman/listinfo/dataperf
