Re: Is Quark AS Attachable?
Re: Is Quark AS Attachable?
- Subject: Re: Is Quark AS Attachable?
- From: Shane Stanley <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 16:25:38 +1100
On 15/1/02 3:49 PM +1000, Bob.Kalbaugh, email@hidden, wrote:
>
If you don't mind clarifying for me (I'm documenting this for future
>
reference), what is a v3-style or v4-style name? I guess I'm thrown off by
>
the use of the word "style". Are you referring to using the Script Manager
>
XT in the different versions, or is there some difference in the actual
>
naming? Am I just missing the point entirely?
As I understand it -- and I use the word "understand" loosely -- names are
stored internally in a different place in v3 docs and v4 docs. In v3, they
could be up to 32k; in v4, 31 characters. To keep backwards compatibility,
if QXP finds nothing in the v4 position, it then looks in the v3 position
(for the first 31 characters, anyway).
Most of the XTensions still store names in the old place, and as you can see
that works fine -- as long as nothing is written in the new space. But if
you add a name via script, you can end up with a box having one name for
scripts, and another (or none) for XTensions. Confusing, to say the least.
I believe the "reflow" parameter to the save command, introduced with 4.11,
will "fix" a document by rationalising the naming, but I can't remember the
details.
And I believe the reason a lot of XTs weren't updated was because the code
needed to do it wasn't made available by Quark for a long time.
>
>
I'm retracting that whole "neat
>
feature" statement entirely - for anybody following this thread - though I
>
can't say I'm discouraged from using it for running scripts. And I guess
>
with careful consideration, it could be used initially for setting the
>
names.
With great care -- it helps to know what's going on. But it might be better
to ask Vision's Edge to update their XT, perhaps by making unsubtle
comparisons with alap's XT. After all, v4 has been around for quite a while
now.
--
Shane Stanley, email@hidden