"Jacques Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I discovered to my surprise that the "version stamp" (!version XXX) the
> second line of the header, of a WOR generated by MI version 6.00 had
> "jumped" to 600. I was wandering if anyone had experienced "backwards
> incompatibility" when using a wor600 on previous versions?
>
> I would like to recall that incompatibility has two facets: formal and
> substantive. Formal incompatibility appears when a file is not accepted
by
> MI because of its version stamp (so many MBX are rejected because of
that!).
> Substantive incompatibility results from specific elements of the contents
> that are not recognized by MI at the "execution" time because they are not
> part of MI code itself (the new style clause introduced in version 412 is
an
> example, the WOR being still stamped v300 by v412).
Please notice that the example you gave is one of "substantive"
incompatibility,
as every window definition in a workspace file now includes printer
settings.
*sigh* I supppose this is an example of "Be careful what you ask for,
you just might get it."
Spencer
_______________________________________________________________________
List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com |
To unsubscribe, send e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
put "unsubscribe MapInfo-L" in the message body.
