On 7/18/05, Thomas Fernandez wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:50:07 +0300 GMT (18/07/2005, 21:50 +0700 GMT), > Jay Walker wrote: > > JW> I might be wrong, but it seems to me that RL is now trying to > JW> implement a new degree of unicode support and that RL knew - or > JW> should have known - in advance that users could lose characters in > JW> consequence of the partial implementation of unicode in the > JW> Microed. > > I doubt this. Had they known it, they would have fixed it. It turns > out to be an elusive bug, as some encounter it and others don't.
Thomas, perhaps it is just a bug. But even if it was just a bug, why did RL lose sight of their goal to publish a new release to replace the old one that left out BayesIt? It seems likely that this bug got introduced along with the 3.51 MSI. So why not drop back to 3.5.36 and make another stab at 3.51, this time without working on the charset issues? Why did we see 3.51.1, 3.51.2, 3.51.3, and 3.51.4 - all playing with this same issue if it is just a bug and not an attempt to implement a new degree of unicode support? I am sorry, but this just doesn't compute for me. It's not logical. > It does need to be found and fixed before the release, though. > Otherwise it would be a show-stopper. But we are in beta-testing, so I > do not really follow your sentiments at this moment. Again, Thomas, you are talking like someone who is at the beginning of a beta cycle and not the end of a beta cycle. This bug not only would be a showstopper, but it is a showstopper... if unicode support is the main objective of the current beta cycle. But I never got the impression - until now - that this is the case. I knew of several objectives - including improving IMAP support, which now seems to have taken a backseat again - but probably the biggest objective (and the objective that was met the earliest) was just to get a more-or-less stable release with BayesIt included - something to replace 3.5.30. So if unicode support is an elusive bug, it only makes sense to scrap it for a while so that non-beta-test users of TB can download a stable version with the BayesIt that they were using in it. As for myself, I don't use BayesIt. But what I want - what I paid for long ago with TB Pro - is OTFE. Unfortunately, I can't get the search engine to work in OTFE (it hangs almost interminably), so that promise has yet to be fulfilled as far as I am concerned. I would not be surprised if IMAP users have a similar - or even stronger - sense of frustration. -- jaywalker Windows XP Pro SP2 and The Bat! Pro (No OTFE) 3.5.36 ________________________________________________________ Current beta is 3.51.4 | 'Using TBBETA' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html IMPORTANT: To register as a Beta tester, use this link first - http://www.ritlabs.com/en/partners/testers/
