On 3/9/04 8:30 pm, "Troy Rollins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If I were Revolution, I would state something along the lines: >> >> "Note: OS's not currently supported by their manufacturer may also >> have problems running certain features of Revolution" > > True, but given that fact that those OS's are not likely to change > much, it should also seem appropriate to indicate specifically what > features those are which can be expected to misbehave. I mean, if XML > is known to not work in Win95, why not just indicate that rather than > leave it to the individual developer to play hit-and-miss... either > that, or drop the suggestion that it supports those OS's at all. In 2.5 we did have had a policy of either supporting something or clearly dropping it, and as far as possible we've done that with most components. And we will continue that trend over future versions. We did fully intend to sort even this XML glitch on Windows 95, it was just one of those things that didn't quite make it. Partly we had to wait quite a while because the original report didn't have enough information and we weren't supplied more information when we requested it (we had to be sure it was a "real" issue and not a problem unique to the reporter's "Virtual PC", and get information on what was installed on the system, for which we sent detailed instructions), and by the time a member of the team had time to go and get that information themselves, it was getting later in the release cycle and harder to fit it in. With only one report of this issue and release looming, it got missed. But it shall be fixed (or if impossible to fix, officially noted as unsupported) very shortly. Kind regards, Kevin Kevin Miller ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ http://www.runrev.com/ Runtime Revolution - User-Centric Development Tools _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
