On 2009-12-09, rgheck wrote:
The problem, as I understand it, is that, under certain circumstances,
even a file with extension .jpg can be executed by windows, not by the
default viewer. Ask your local spammer for details.
AFAIK, the local spammer will attach a file nice-pic.jpg.exe and the
On 12/09/2009 02:50 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck wrote:
On 12/08/2009 08:57 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you
should do it the way we handle dia, xfig, and the like. We should
check for a real viewer, such as OpenOffice, Word, or
On 2009-12-09, rgheck wrote:
Are you sure of that? On my KDE system this is properly handled and I
believe on Gnome too. Or am I missing something?
Well, I tried it here, and got the error message I posted:
Systemcall.cpp(111): QProcess %s
/tmp/lyx_tmpdir.MT3859/lyx_tmpbuf0/r.rtf did not
On 2009-12-09, rgheck wrote:
> The problem, as I understand it, is that, under certain circumstances,
> even a file with extension .jpg can be executed by windows, not by the
> "default viewer". Ask your local spammer for details.
AFAIK, the local spammer will attach a file "nice-pic.jpg.exe"
On 12/09/2009 02:50 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
rgheck wrote:
On 12/08/2009 08:57 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you
should do it the way we handle > dia, xfig, and the like. We should
check for a "real" viewer, such as OpenOffice, Word,
On 2009-12-09, rgheck wrote:
>> Are you sure of that? On my KDE system this is properly handled and I
>> believe on Gnome too. Or am I missing something?
> Well, I tried it here, and got the error message I posted:
> Systemcall.cpp(111): QProcess %s
>
rgheck wrote:
If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you should
do it the way we handle dia, xfig, and the like. We should check for a
real viewer, such as OpenOffice, Word, or whatever, and if we don't
find one then it just defaults to auto. The same for WMF and EMF.
If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you should do
it the way we handle
dia, xfig, and the like. We should check for a real viewer, such as
OpenOffice, Word, or
whatever, and if we don't find one then it just defaults to auto.
What is the advantage? I don't have
On 12/08/2009 08:57 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you
should do it the way we handle dia, xfig, and the like. We should
check for a real viewer, such as OpenOffice, Word, or whatever, and
if we don't find one then it just defaults to
rgheck wrote:
On 12/08/2009 08:57 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you
should do it the way we handle dia, xfig, and the like. We should
check for a real viewer, such as OpenOffice, Word, or whatever,
and if we don't find one then it just
rgheck wrote:
> If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you should
> do it the way we handle dia, xfig, and the like. We should check for a
> "real" viewer, such as OpenOffice, Word, or whatever, and if we don't
> find one then it just defaults to "auto". The same for WMF
> If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you should do
it the way we handle
> dia, xfig, and the like. We should check for a "real" viewer, such as
OpenOffice, Word, or
> whatever, and if we don't find one then it just defaults to "auto".
What is the advantage? I don't
On 12/08/2009 08:57 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you
should do it the way we handle > dia, xfig, and the like. We should
check for a "real" viewer, such as OpenOffice, Word, or whatever, and
if we don't find one then it just defaults to
rgheck wrote:
On 12/08/2009 08:57 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> If you want to introduce such support for doc, rtf, etc, then you
should do it the way we handle > dia, xfig, and the like. We should
check for a "real" viewer, such as OpenOffice, Word, or whatever,
and if we don't find one then it
14 matches
Mail list logo
