Re: Is Quark AS Attachable?
Re: Is Quark AS Attachable?
- Subject: Re: Is Quark AS Attachable?
- From: "Bob.Kalbaugh" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 02:34:53 -0500
on 1/15/02 12:25 AM, Shane Stanley at email@hidden wrote:
>
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.
Wow! That's an incredible difference. I bet that ticked-off a lot a people
who maybe liked to store info there. I guess. I mean if I had known about
this before, I might have tried something to take advantage of 32k of space.
Was it 32k for every box? (you don't have to answer that. I'm just thinking
out loud.) Not really knowing, I've always assumed that there would be some
limitation to box names and have always kept mine short and sweet.
>
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 see. This explains the results I was getting, and clears up the "style"
question.
>
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.
Just my opinion, but it seems to me that Quark is never in a hurry to do
anything. Sorry if that sounds like bashing, it's not neccessarily intended,
but for me anymore... well forget it. That's a totally different topic,
really.
>
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.
Perhaps. But with 5.0 looming, including the script menu, I'll probably stop
using the Script Manager XT altogether.
Thanks again for all of the great info. Much appreciated.
--
Bob.Kalbaugh