Does the .png image format have a text metadata field?

"Ken Blake" wrote

| But it's usable a lot more than .rtf,
|
| ?? Anybody running Windows can open an rtf file. WordPad comes with
| Windows, and it can do it. And almost every word processor can too.
|
Yes, but it's a Windows format. I know a lot
of people on Macs.

| .doc,
|
| Most word processors, even competitors to Word, can open them.
|
| or - especially - .docx .)
|
|
| Older versions of Word can't read .docx, but that problem is easily
| overcome. A google search quickly finds many ways.
|

It can't be assumed that people can open those files.
And if they can't they probably won't know why. With
docx it can be very tricky. Libre Office opens them but
not always competently. Things like tables often get
messed up. And MS offers readers for free, but that's
only readers, and not available for all systems. I would
never send a docx to anyone and would only send a doc
if I know the recipient has MS Word. But I can't even think
of a reason that I'd need to send a doc. It's never happened.

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


|
| ?? Anybody running Windows can open an rtf file. WordPad comes with
| Windows, and it can do it. And almost every word processor can too.
|
Yes, but it's a Windows format. I know a lot
of people on Macs.

macs have no issues with rtf.

mobile devices, not so much.

On 2/21/2020 5:28 PM, Mayayana wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote

| But it's usable a lot more than .rtf,
|
| ?? Anybody running Windows can open an rtf file. WordPad comes with
| Windows, and it can do it. And almost every word processor can too.
|
Yes, but it's a Windows format. I know a lot
of people on Macs.

| .doc,
|
| Most word processors, even competitors to Word, can open them.
|
| or - especially - .docx .)
|
|
| Older versions of Word can't read .docx, but that problem is easily
| overcome. A google search quickly finds many ways.
|






And if they can't they probably won't know why. With
docx it can be very tricky. Libre Office opens them but
not always competently. Things like tables often get
messed up. And MS offers readers for free, but that's
only readers, and not available for all systems. I would
never send a docx to anyone and would only send a doc
if I know the recipient has MS Word.


I would never assume that anyone has the needed software to open *any*
type of file, except what is standard in Windows, such as txt files.

I don't send anyone any type of file that requires special software to
open, unless I know he has such software. My point was merely that there
is lots of software available for .docx files, and anyone who wants to
open such a file can easily find software to do it, if he has even the
slightest knowledge of how to do things in Windows.

When docx first came out, yes it was a problem., But it hasn't been a
problem for most people for a long time now.



But I can't even think
of a reason that I'd need to send a doc. It's never happened.


It's almost never happened to me either. I don't send anyone a doc or
docx file unless it's a requirement (for example, I've submitted doc
documents for publication when I had to). I hardly ever even create any
doc or docx files, since I dislike Word; instead I use WordPerfect,
which I think is much better.



--
Ken

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
(Now word-processor use)

Some advice if you want to do this - a change of the subject - the
'standard' way.

That way is:

Subject: new (was: old)

So in this case:

Subject: Word-processor use (was: Image formats)

The '(was: old)' structure is recognized by compliant newsreaders
and will be stripped from subsequent responses to an article which is
marked in such a way.

I.e. if you had used this marking, my/this response would have

Subject: Word-processor use

without the '(was: Image formats)' bit.

OTOH, if you had used this marking, this response wouldn't exist! :-)

Hope this helps.

P.S. My newsreader has this trivial regular expression to do this magic:

# A regular expression that tin will use to find Subject suffixes
# which will be removed when replying or posting followup.
strip_was_regex=.\(([Ww]a[rs]|[Bb]y[l3]o):.*\)\s*$

Elementary, dear Watson! :-)

[...]

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:25:38 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:


One day file extensions will be outdated and machines will
work out how to display the data from a file without the
preconception inherent in assigning a file extension.

that day was back in 1984 with the original macintosh and
classic mac os, which did not use file extensions.

mac os x, being based on unix, does use extensions.

No we don't need extensions in UNIX,

yes we do. change the extension and things break.

for example, rename a .tar.gz to .jpg, a .html to .png., a .pdf to .cc,
or remove the extension entirely and see how well it works out for you.

No, UNIX doesn't mind, there are no rules as to presence, number or
length of extensions. Particular programs might expect particular
extensions but it's not a rule for the OS. Call a text file
somefile.somextrnsion and vim will still open it.

In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
(Now word-processor use)

Some advice if you want to do this - a change of the subject - the
'standard' way.

That way is:

Subject: new (was: old)

I know; someone (probably you) has mentioned this before.

So in this case:

Subject: Word-processor use (was: Image formats)

The '(was: old)' structure is recognized by compliant newsreaders
and will be stripped from subsequent responses to an article which is
marked in such a way.

I fear not many though. I _generally_ actually _do_ do that, but have
found that hardly any of the followups _do_ amend it that way. This
time, I just couldn't BA, sorry.

(It must be as irritating to you as top-posting - or, worse,
non-snipping - is to me. Or, perhaps, a closer parallel - to clients
that don't know about "-- " lines, and thus quote signatures in full.
[Usually used, of course, by people who don't snip either.])

I.e. if you had used this marking, my/this response would have

Subject: Word-processor use

without the '(was: Image formats)' bit.

OTOH, if you had used this marking, this response wouldn't exist! :-)

(-:

Hope this helps.

P.S. My newsreader has this trivial regular expression to do this magic:

# A regular expression that tin will use to find Subject suffixes
# which will be removed when replying or posting followup.
strip_was_regex=.\(([Ww]a[rs]|[Bb]y[l3]o):.*\)\s*$

Elementary, dear Watson! :-)

[...]
Unfortunately, the subject-amending is tedious. But I still usually _do_
do it.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never. For me, there has to be a meaning. There's not much meaning in eating
bugs. - Darcey Bussell (on whether she'd appear on /I'm a Celebrity/), in RT
2015/11/28-12/4

mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:25:38 -0500, nospam wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:

One day file extensions will be outdated and machines will
work out how to display the data from a file without the
preconception inherent in assigning a file extension.

that day was back in 1984 with the original macintosh and
classic mac os, which did not use file extensions.

mac os x, being based on unix, does use extensions.

No we don't need extensions in UNIX,

yes we do. change the extension and things break.

for example, rename a .tar.gz to .jpg, a .html to .png., a .pdf to .cc,
or remove the extension entirely and see how well it works out for you.

No, UNIX doesn't mind, there are no rules as to presence, number or
length of extensions. Particular programs might expect particular
extensions but it's not a rule for the OS. Call a text file
somefile.somextrnsion and vim will still open it.

Indeed. Most of my text files do not have an extension. Those which
are also used on other platforms - mainly Android - have a .txt
extension so the UI doesn't throw its arms in the air when I tap on one
of them. Same for text files which are e-mailed to others.

In article , mechanic
wrote:

One day file extensions will be outdated and machines will
work out how to display the data from a file without the
preconception inherent in assigning a file extension.

that day was back in 1984 with the original macintosh and
classic mac os, which did not use file extensions.

mac os x, being based on unix, does use extensions.

No we don't need extensions in UNIX,

yes we do. change the extension and things break.

for example, rename a .tar.gz to .jpg, a .html to .png., a .pdf to .cc,
or remove the extension entirely and see how well it works out for you.

No, UNIX doesn't mind, there are no rules as to presence, number or
length of extensions. Particular programs might expect particular
extensions

exactly the point.

Ken Blake on Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:26:46 -0700
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
On 2/21/2020 4:43 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:

In the business world, MS Office seems to be the de facto standard. I visit
2 or 3 different workplaces around the country every week and it's
extremely seldom that I see anything other than MSO. Interestingly, one of
the places where I recently made a return visit has migrated from MSO to
Google Docs. Understandably, no one is happy.

I am under the impression that WordPerfect is the choice for legal
offices.


No, it's not. It was, long ago. But WordPerfect 6.0 was so laden with
bugs that most legal offices abandoned it then, and went to Word. 6.1
fixed most of the bugs, but it came out too late and WordPerfect,
despite its being much better than Word in my opinion, never regained
its market share.

As I said, I was under the impression.

I have not made each upgrade, so I may have missed some of the
problem. I may never have gone into the 'buggy' areas, so there is
that.
As of today, the one thing Word does which WP doesn't, is
automagically break a large document up into signatures for printing
as a brochure.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

"Mayayana" on Fri, 21 Feb 2020 19:28:48
-0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:

It can't be assumed that people can open those files.
And if they can't they probably won't know why. With
docx it can be very tricky. Libre Office opens them but
not always competently. Things like tables often get
messed up. And MS offers readers for free, but that's
only readers, and not available for all systems. I would
never send a docx to anyone and would only send a doc
if I know the recipient has MS Word. But I can't even think
of a reason that I'd need to send a doc. It's never happened.

I was at the other end: many docx files distributed for class.
Open office (etc) much better at opening them than WordPerfect.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

Char Jackson on Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:56:32 -0600
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:

I am under the impression that WordPerfect is the choice for legal
offices.

I think it was, in the 90's and the 00's. I don't think so anymore, but my
sample size is too small.

As I said, "I'm under the impression"

Getting multiple sections of a legal brief into one master
document, and all of them styled "correctly" seems to be the big edge.

I'm not sure why that would be a problem.

WordPerfect has the view option "revealed codes", so you can see
what is being done to the document (font changes, paragraph styles,
bold / underline / italic) and you can search for the embedded code.
Microsoft believes you have no need to worry your pretty little head
about such trifles, and conceals it all in the [non-printing]
Paragraph marker.

I thought about migrating to Word when I went back to college. But
apparently MSW and subdocuments is a case you've either had your
sub-documents corrupted, or you haven't had that happen yet.
I've not only not had that happen, I didn't even know it was a thing.

It was when I was considering the move. Enough that it showed up
in a google search on "how to have subdocuments in Word".

With Outlook, sometimes people talk about a corrupted .pst file. Same as
above, I've never had that happen and don't personally know of anyone who
has had it happen. Still, the stories persist, so I guess it's a thing.

Like so many things, if it happens one in a thousand times, it is
not a big deal. Unless you are the one, in which case, it happens
100%. Like backups, you may never need one, but when that day
occurs, you be glad you did. (Unless you had backed up the corrupted
files first. I hate it when I do that.)
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Frank Slootweg
writes:
[...]

The '(was: old)' structure is recognized by compliant newsreaders
and will be stripped from subsequent responses to an article which is
marked in such a way.

I fear not many though. I _generally_ actually _do_ do that, but have
found that hardly any of the followups _do_ amend it that way.

Hmmm. I've found that many newsreaders (the programs, not the humans)
seem to know how to handle the '(was: ....)' construct. It's probably in
one of the RFCs. My newsreader has had it for probably some 20 years.

This
time, I just couldn't BA, sorry.

No worries and no need for saying sorry.

(It must be as irritating to you as top-posting - or, worse,
non-snipping - is to me. Or, perhaps, a closer parallel - to clients
that don't know about "-- " lines, and thus quote signatures in full.
[Usually used, of course, by people who don't snip either.])

No, it's not irritating at all. Most of the time there's so much
thread drift that there's just no point even trying to use '(was: ...)'
all the time.

I tend to look at the content and the poster and 'Netiquette' only as
a last consideration. So you can't do no wrong! :-)

[...]

Unfortunately, the subject-amending is tedious. But I still usually _do_
do it.

I'll *try* to get out of your hair, but no promises! :-)

Ken Blake on Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:47:28 -0700
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:

But I can't even think
of a reason that I'd need to send a doc. It's never happened.


It's almost never happened to me either. I don't send anyone a doc or
docx file unless it's a requirement (for example, I've submitted doc
documents for publication when I had to). I hardly ever even create any
doc or docx files, since I dislike Word; instead I use WordPerfect,
which I think is much better.

Same here. (Word vs WP seems to be almost a "religious" thing.)
Pound out the paper in WP, then convert to Doc format for submission.
Or RTF.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

"Ken Blake" wrote

| instead I use WordPerfect,
| which I think is much better.
|

WP seems to be some sort of insider cult, used
by the people in the know. I don't think I've ever
seen it. For years I used a copy of WordPro from a
magazine CD. (Remember when the British PC
magazines used to give away real software?) But
I've never needed word processing for much, so I
never went looking for the best. I just use what's
free. Now I have Libre Office and it's serviceable
for my needs. I'm curious what's worth the cost
to have WP.

"mechanic" wrote

| No, UNIX doesn't mind, there are no rules as to presence, number or
| length of extensions. Particular programs might expect particular
| extensions but it's not a rule for the OS. Call a text file
| somefile.somextrnsion and vim will still open it.

Notepad will, too, if it's the default program for
unrecognized file types or if you ask it to open
the file. But the system of having assigned programs
requires an extension, so that Windows which program
to execute in order to open the file