New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Alvaro Tejero Cantero
Hello, The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? -- Álvaro Tejero Cantero p42.org

Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Allan Rae
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote: Hello, The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? No. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette. And a very yummy omelette it is too. We

Fwd: Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Alvaro Tejero Cantero
The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? | No. | We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility. | Or vice versa depending on your perspective. Yes. Perhaps I was too concise.

Re: Fwd: Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Allan Rae
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote: The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? | No. | We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility. | Or vice versa

New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Alvaro Tejero Cantero
Hello, The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? -- Álvaro Tejero Cantero p42.org

Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Allan Rae
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote: Hello, The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? No. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette. And a very yummy omelette it is too. We

Fwd: Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Alvaro Tejero Cantero
The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? | No. | We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility. | Or vice versa depending on your perspective. Yes. Perhaps I was too concise.

Re: Fwd: Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Allan Rae
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote: The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with =1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? | No. | We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility. | Or vice versa

New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Alvaro Tejero Cantero
Hello, The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with <=1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? -- Álvaro Tejero Cantero p42.org

Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Allan Rae
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote: > Hello, > > The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read with > <=1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be fixed? No. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette. And a very yummy omelette it is too.

Fwd: Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Alvaro Tejero Cantero
> > The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read > with <=1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be > fixed? | No. | We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility. | Or vice versa depending on your perspective. Yes. Perhaps I was too

Re: Fwd: Re: New tabular inset in 1.1.6cvs

2000-10-22 Thread Allan Rae
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote: > > > > > The new tabular inset format produces tables that cannot be read > > with <=1.1.4. (I didn't test with 1.1.5). Is that going to be > > fixed? > > | No. > > | We don't guarantee upward-compatibility only backward-compatibility. > | Or