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

On 2/22/2020 12:04 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
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.)


Yes. Same with Windows vs Apple, vs Linux; FireFox vs Chrome vs Edge;
Ford, vs GM; Toyota vs Honda vs Nissan; etc. etc. etc.

Although these days there are many more Wordists than WordPerfectians.



Pound out the paper in WP, then convert to Doc format for submission.
Or RTF.


Yes.


--
Ken

On Sat, 22 Feb 2020 09:59:21 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

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 suppose it's mostly just a different design approach, and as such, I have
no problem with it. With Word, I simply apply the formatting that I want,
and I can instantly see the results. Behind the scenes, there could well be
a mess of duplicated and conflicting formatting codes and commands, which
if true you could say is sloppy, but I personally don't care and am happy
not to have to deal with that as long as I get the results that I want.

One of the longest running complaints from folks who came to Word from WP
is 'where is the command to reveal codes?'. For folks who mostly bypassed
WP, it becomes a question of 'why would I want that?'

Above, the sloppy aspect that I'm referring to could be like how MS creates
HTML documents. The actual HTML is sloppy as can be, but the end result
usually renders properly. Granted, proper rendering is not always the only
criteria. Anyway, I don't know if Word docs are actually sloppy like that.
I just assume that they are, and if so, it doesn't affect or bother me.

snip

"Mayayana" on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 14:16:47
-0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"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.

"Installed User Base" in my situation.

I started out with "Not Word" on 5 1/4 floppies, and migrated
through to version 16 (Most recent is 19).
Actually, I started with Apple Writer (or whatever) on an Apple
II, or whatever was on the Prime II or {The other school mainframe},
or the other school's computer system editors. Had the chance to work
with Gutenberg software.That was really neat, but there seemed to be
two ways to do just about anything. All done by embedded codes, what
you saw on screen was not what saw on the printed page. Your text
would look something like
p3Hanging Paragraphs look nice ibuti it takes up a lot of
bpaperb
and print out as a hanging paragraph:
hanging paragraphs look nice but it
takes up a lot of _paper_.
(Oh the joys of ASCII .... )

Anyway, changed schools, no PC's did borrow a dorm mates Apple to
crank out a term paper at the last minute.
Back in school, everything is Microsoft, Windows is a program you
ran on top. Spend some of my inheritance on a computer, get the Big
40 meg HD. Get Wordstar (?? whatever) because I don't like Microsoft.
I migrate up with some of the upgrades. I tended to get new hardware
because my current box didn't play the Current Game of the Flavor.
(Doom was the first one), if the "old software worked I kept at it.
After college, I lucked out and got a gig in the "Word Processing
Section" of an engineering firm which used WP. I learned about macros
and embedded documents because I was seeing it done. Woohoo! Do
things at home to exploit my new knowledge. E.G., subdivide the
journal I was keeping into subsections, so I did not have to load 10
years of entries just to enter a couple lines for today. Created a
batch file to launch it, and a macro to find the bottom of the last
page, enter today's date, mark it for the Table of Contents.
Later, I figured out how to printout brochures, 4 pages of print
laid out on one sheet of paper. With subdocuments for repeated
boilerplate.
And so, here I am, way too many years later, with a lot of 'habits
of the hand' so that I know what to press in what order to get done
what I want. WordPerfect's interface is "intuitively obvious" whilst
Word's is not. (Because I've spent decades working with WP.)

The short form: I've been using WP for decades, I have a gut
reaction against the Evil Empire anyway, and Word also wants to
enhance my computer experience with more freeping dancing bunnies*
Hope that explains enough.

tschus
pyotr

* from Rod Sterling's complaint about trying to do dramatic TV,
knowing that you're going to be interrupted every ten minutes by
dancing rabbits selling toilet paper.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

"Mayayana" on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 14:19:45
-0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"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

Which means that you can't use that extension for useful info.
Letter[date].biz LetterDate.[initials] SavedFile.[subject code as
TLA]
and so forth.

--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

"pyotr filipivich" wrote

|
| The short form: I've been using WP for decades, I have a gut
| reaction against the Evil Empire anyway, and Word also wants to
| enhance my computer experience with more freeping dancing bunnies*
| Hope that explains enough.
|

So you don't necessarily think it's better... you're
just used to it? I've never had occasion to do all
the things you've needed to do, like making a
brochure.

I went and checked their site. They won't actually
tell me how much it costs! But other sites say it
"starts at $150". Maybe that's why I don't know about it.
I've never had enough reason to buy word processor
software. I notice it's also now owned by Corel.
Unfortunate. They're the same people who made a mess
of Paint Shop Pro. They're like the scourge of Symantec:
Buy it. Break it. Bloat it. Double the price.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote

| Which means that you can't use that extension for useful info.
| Letter[date].biz LetterDate.[initials] SavedFile.[subject code as
| TLA]
| and so forth.

Yes. Life's tough. People are being murdered by the thousands
in Syria, but we have to survive file naming limitations.

I'm surprised how many people complain about limitations
in file naming. I like to organize in folders and haven't had
trouble with thinking of file names. But a file extension is
certainly useful info. Eds garden.txt is probably a list of
flowers in Ed's garden. Eds garden.jpg tells you it's a picture
of Ed's garden. I'd much rather have Eds garden.jpg than
Garden photo.ed

On Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 5:03:15 AM UTC-7, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
For .jpg image files, I can add text notes to them very easily: in
IrfanView, I just (open the image and then) type I (info) then C (comment).

This doesn't work for the .png file format.

_Does_ the .png format _have_ a metadata text field? If so, what utility
lets you see it, and ideally edit it?

(I'm talking about text that _becomes part of the file_, not that is
attached to it in some "album" type management system: such that it
remains part of the file even if the file is renamed, moved, or even
emailed.)

It has multiple flavors of metadata, according to this.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...-data-like-jpg

The original specification has two kinds of text chunks,
a plaintext and a compressed text thing. And also has some other
things which contain specific kinds of information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics

"ancillary chunks"

The above (temporally long) StackOverflow claims in 2017, an
actual EXIF chunk was added. The benefit of this, is
no "custom" handler would be needed to attempt to parse
key-value pairs from one of the older chunk types. Since this
is optional, no program absolutely has to add it, and the
usual 4CC parse logic applies (a field you don't understand,
ignore it).

http://ftp-osl.osuosl.org/pub/libpng....0.html#C.eXIf

[4CC code of "eXIf" case sensitive]

As of today then, you can add it.

It's just a matter of "tools" to do it.

Note that the idea of compressing text means that you
can't just necessarily dump the old chunk style into
a hex editor and "recognize" the text by eye. Only the
weakest kinds of compression (like LZ4) allow doing that.

Whereas, at a guess, if an EXIF chunk was added, I would
expect the EXIF chunk to be similar to other image formats,
and concentrate more on usability than efficiency. If we
could find an example of a 2017+ PNG with added EXIF, then
we could check for that.

But otherwise, PNG has a lot of emphasis on efficiency.
That's why one PNG program, it attempts to compress a
PNG like 20 times (with different settings), it compares
all the compressed sizes, then "picks" the smallest file
out of the lot. PNG has multiple bit-depth settings,
which allow cartoon-like materials to be heavily compressed.

For some reason, the program for doing that can't seem to
just pick the best options from an analysis of the format,
and relies on brute force compression followed by
selection, to pick the format. People use such programs
for web site preparation and crushing the byte count
for best efficiency. Like it matters when the .js fleet
is 5MB :-( "The part that pays the bills", they don't
care how big that part gets. Whereas the PNG file must
be crushed flat.

So if you were expecting to see a lot of metadata in
web page PNGs, I would guess it wouldn't be that common.
It would take a JPG camera picture, a workflow with
2017 extension support, followed by presentation of
the item by an amateur somewhere.

In a quick search, the PNGs in my current download folder,
none of those seemed to have anything resembling an EXIF.
But that doesn't mean anything. Whereas if I were to
start throwing downloaded JPG images into HxD, I would
likely be seeing some text up near the front (an occasional
JPG would still have the camera data).

Summary: Yes, you can add metadata.
Problem one, is adding the new chunk type.
Problem two, is a recipient being able to view the
new added chunk.
Problem three, is downloading a recent enough tool,
so that JPG to PNG conversion, conserves the EXIF part,
so you won't be doing this by hand.

I doubt I have anything like that here, since I would never
have expected an image format to evolve, and then me
needing to upgrade tools for that specific purpose.
Imagemagick is probably the tool I would be most likely
to sample a new version. GIMP, the "playing with the interface
crap", has driven me away from trying new versions. While I have
Irfanview on a number of OS installs here, I don't spend a lot
of time in that program to know when support for that would
be added.

For these newsgroups then, the question would be whether
the federated search has a handler for EXIF in PNG and
indexes it, or has an option to display an EXIF chunk if you
manage to add one. I presume you want integration so
the OS does something useful too.

If the 2017 date is correct, I wouldn't expect miracles. Even
Windows 10 might be missing support.

Paul



nospam lies so often that he has a hard time keeping track of his misrepresentations. Or his sock puppets for that matter.

Don't look now, but I think nospam has a serious mancrush on David.

Any inconsolable obsessive welfare receiver could easily do the same. I can not grasp that. Darkness is darkness and there are many who are of one mind with it. Several are even lawyers.



--
My Snoring Solution
https://www.facebook.com/JonasEklundh
https://youtu.be/HMx0RyzbPgQ
Jonas Eklundh

In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
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.

I remember being very impressed with that option, in WP 5.1, the last
one I had much to do with - the last (I think) DOS one. (Of course, DOS
- or character mode, if you wish - wasn't very WYSIWYG, so reveal codes
was useful.) Unfortunately, the first Windows version of WP (6.0 was
it?) didn't "play nice" with Windows very well, and - with, also,
Windows coming "free" with Write, or later Wordpad, which were designed
from the start to work with Windows, WP lost market share. (I think they
fairly quickly fixed the shortcomings in WP, but too late.)

I didn't know you could search on the control codes.

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.

Which has the infuriating effect - still, I think; certainly up to at
least the 2003 version - that if you delete a paragraph marker (e. g.
you decide you don't after all want to start a new paragraph at a
particular point), it can remove/change the formatting for the previous
paragraph - often catastrophically.
[]
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.)

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Once a mind is opened it is very hard to shut.

On 2/22/2020 4:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
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.

I remember being very impressed with that option, in WP 5.1, the last
one I had much to do with - the last (I think) DOS one.


No, the last DOS version was 6.2.


(Of course, DOS
- or character mode, if you wish - wasn't very WYSIWYG, so reveal codes
was useful.)


To me the main value of reveal codes (not "revealed codes") is when you
want to remove or change a formatting option Reveal Codes makes it very
easy to put the cursor in the appropriate place. It's much harder in Word.

Over the years I've known many people who hated WordPerfect and greatly
preferred Word. Their main objection to WordPerfect was reveal codes,
even though its presence is optional and it's very easy to turn off if
you don't want to see it.


--
Ken

On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 4:29:47 PM UTC-7, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
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.

I remember being very impressed with that option, in WP 5.1, the last
one I had much to do with - the last (I think) DOS one. (Of course, DOS
- or character mode, if you wish - wasn't very WYSIWYG, so reveal codes
was useful.) Unfortunately, the first Windows version of WP (6.0 was
it?) didn't "play nice" with Windows very well, and - with, also,
Windows coming "free" with Write, or later Wordpad, which were designed
from the start to work with Windows, WP lost market share. (I think they
fairly quickly fixed the shortcomings in WP, but too late.)

I didn't know you could search on the control codes.

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.

Which has the infuriating effect - still, I think; certainly up to at
least the 2003 version - that if you delete a paragraph marker (e. g.
you decide you don't after all want to start a new paragraph at a
particular point), it can remove/change the formatting for the previous
paragraph - often catastrophically.
[]
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.)

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Once a mind is opened it is very hard to shut.



By following 'media talking heads' like that you get phrases like 'affirmative action'. Carried to its (ir)rational conclusion, the insistence that it's 'partisan' for a heterosexual guy to not wish to screw a dead body is established. David can create a virtual machine. Let's make sure he gets all the cookies in the world!

But when the stats were run, it turns out by _that_ criteria, Apd was far more "fanatical" than he admitted.

The majority of posters in this group do application development either as a hobby or as a profession, so I think it unlikely anybody here thinks of writing macros to be "witch craft".

Apd claims to be the programming master, let's see him put up an example minus the normalization routines.

--
My Snoring Solution
https://redd.it/6sfkup
http://prescottcomputerguy.com
https://youtu.be/GPPqvw8iEBs
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB

On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 4:40:58 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
On 2/22/2020 4:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
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.

I remember being very impressed with that option, in WP 5.1, the last
one I had much to do with - the last (I think) DOS one.


No, the last DOS version was 6.2.


(Of course, DOS
- or character mode, if you wish - wasn't very WYSIWYG, so reveal codes
was useful.)


To me the main value of reveal codes (not "revealed codes") is when you
want to remove or change a formatting option Reveal Codes makes it very
easy to put the cursor in the appropriate place. It's much harder in Word..

Over the years I've known many people who hated WordPerfect and greatly
preferred Word. Their main objection to WordPerfect was reveal codes,
even though its presence is optional and it's very easy to turn off if
you don't want to see it.


--
Ken



Lots of posters continue replying to Shadow. I do not chide Troll Killer Snit for his hissy fit but I do not grasp why he stays here now that he gets what this place is. Troll Killer Snit is pushing dialog as experienced in a non-trolling environment and open groups clearly make him want to puke.

You do realize that the massive floods ending up in multiple groups started out as a joke about hacking Google. No one here has ever read my code, much less found a bug; still, in my subconscious, I'm thinking, "Troll Killer Snit could do this better", as if someone knew.

Everyone is Shadow -- the oldest gag in the book. Well... like I said, I have a number of reasons for believing the flooder is Shadow, who is a bash scripter but I don't know if it could be used to flood so much. The only way that I could forgive Mint's constant need for maintenance because of crashing dilemmas or poorly applied standards is if I enjoyed the unending amount of Kool Aid flavors its community have been pushing since 2014.

--
My Snoring Solution
http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/BilkHelp.html
Jonas Eklundh

"Mayayana" on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:31:48
-0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote
| The short form: I've been using WP for decades, I have a gut
| reaction against the Evil Empire anyway, and Word also wants to
| enhance my computer experience with more freeping dancing bunnies*
| Hope that explains enough.

So you don't necessarily think it's better... you're
just used to it? I've never had occasion to do all
the things you've needed to do, like making a
brochure.

it is as much of a case of I started out just needing to produce
papers for class, getting the home version when I got the home
computer, and over the years found "new" things it could do. I don't
know how one would establish an objective standard of "Word processor
quality".
Notepad and wordpad will handle _most_ people's "word processing"
demands. That is, enter text, edit it, print it out. Whether it is a
memo, letter, or class paper, that's all they really want/need; a
glorified typewriter. All the fonts, formatting, headers, footers and
the rest - for the person who wants to write a letter home, all those
other options are "bloatware".
As I said, I messed about with Gutenberg, and some Desktop
Publishing Software. Gutenberg will handle plain text, you could use
if for letter writing. But it could also "mark up" a document for a
"fancy" result. In 1985, it was pretty cool. It also handled Cyrillic
(and Hebrew) which is why I stumbled across it. I'm trying to figure
out Scribus, because it may do some DTP which I want done. (Mostly,
producing a small booklet of the morning prayers.)

http://www.wpvsword.com which is actually at
http://web.archive.org/web/20120910081232/http://www.wpvsword.com/wp11vsword11/index.php
goes into a lot of the details of the inside goings on. Simply put,
WP changes things "going forward" where as Word treats everything as
an object.
quote:
"... illustrate these concepts further by using a real-life example
that you would commonly encounter when word processing:

Say you had typed a report in the following style:
Text Times New Roman 12 Font Left Justified
Headings Arial 14 Font Centered

If you typed the report in WordPerfect and you wanted to amend
everything but the Headings to Courier, 11 pt, Fully Justified, you
would press ctrl+home to go to the top of the document and make 3
formatting changes (3 clicks); your entire report (excluding Headings,
which are Styles) would then follow these changes.

If you typed the same report in Word and you wanted to make the same
changes, you would have to do one of the following:

+ Go to Format » Style » Modify » Format » Font (and Paragraph),
then change the Normal (or predefined) Style
+ 'Select All', make these changes, then modify Headings Styles
+ Create a complex search to amend these formatting changes
+ Go through and change each paragraph individually using the
Format Painter

endquote.

There seems to be, at least on the WP side, a consensus that for
_complex_ documents, where multiple authors have contributed using
their own personal flavor of outline numbering schemes and other style
elements.
On a tangent, in college, my friend was panicking because she had
no time for the traditional steps of writing a draft paper, revising,
the second revision and final if she used a typewriter. I said use
Gutenberg. She didn't know how to do the formatting. I said "you
type, I'll edit." She typed, I edit, we'd print out our work, take a
break and compare notes. I'd offer suggestion on what she'd just
written, go over what she wanted, etc, etc, etc. I realized about
halfway through, I could not quit, because no mater what, the first
half of the paper would have a different style than the latter half.

Anyway, for a long rant on the subject:
http://www.wpuniverse.com/vb/showthread.php?22433-Word-Vs-WordPerfect
I have several of these in my bookmark file).

All of which, is probably more than you cared to know. B-)


I went and checked their site. They won't actually
tell me how much it costs! But other sites say it
"starts at $150".

That is probably for the Office Suite: WP, spreadsheet, Database,
a powerpoint clone, dual overhead windshield washer knobs and the
chrome plated muffler bearings. Personally, I'll stick with Open
Office for the rest of the suite.

Maybe that's why I don't know about it.
I've never had enough reason to buy word processor
software. I notice it's also now owned by Corel.
Unfortunate. They're the same people who made a mess
of Paint Shop Pro. They're like the scourge of Symantec:
Buy it. Break it. Bloat it. Double the price.

I get the Home & Student Version: Word processor alone. X9 is
84.99US$ I'm still going to wait.

--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

Ken Blake on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:40:52 -0700
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
On 2/22/2020 4:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
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.

I remember being very impressed with that option, in WP 5.1, the last
one I had much to do with - the last (I think) DOS one.


No, the last DOS version was 6.2.


(Of course, DOS
- or character mode, if you wish - wasn't very WYSIWYG, so reveal codes
was useful.)


To me the main value of reveal codes (not "revealed codes") is when you
want to remove or change a formatting option Reveal Codes makes it very
easy to put the cursor in the appropriate place. It's much harder in Word.

If it matters to you, then it can be a deal breaker. If it
doesn't, then use what you are use to.

Like news readers. Personally, I like either nn or rn. But those
worked in a Unix shell account I had back in the dark ages.

Over the years I've known many people who hated WordPerfect and greatly
preferred Word. Their main objection to WordPerfect was reveal codes,
even though its presence is optional and it's very easy to turn off if
you don't want to see it.

And that is another issue: "too much work" to configure something.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

"Mayayana" on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:36:16
-0500 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote

| Which means that you can't use that extension for useful info.
| Letter[date].biz LetterDate.[initials] SavedFile.[subject code as
| TLA]
| and so forth.

Yes. Life's tough. People are being murdered by the thousands
in Syria, but we have to survive file naming limitations.
First world, 21st century problems.

I'm surprised how many people complain about limitations
in file naming. I like to organize in folders and haven't had
trouble with thinking of file names. But a file extension is
certainly useful info. Eds garden.txt is probably a list of
flowers in Ed's garden. Eds garden.jpg tells you it's a picture
of Ed's garden. I'd much rather have Eds garden.jpg than
Garden photo.ed

Back in the day, when I was doing that, it was 8.3. And all text
files, even the uucp files. For me, it worked that I could save a
posting as TECHREDU.TPM and know it was from talk.politics.misc Or
know that 1988Book.log was the "logbook" subdoc for 1988. And yes,
they did get sorted into their own subdirectories, once I got home.
It worked for me, YMMV, use no hooks, Go not to the Net for
answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And you are a bloody fool,
only an ignorant cretin would even ask the question, forty two, 47,
the second door, and how many blonde lawyers does it take to change a
lightbulb.


tschus
pyotr




--
pyotr filipivich
I shall now ask my colleague to tell you how good I am at delegating.

On Saturday, February 22, 2020 at 8:44:16 PM UTC-7, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ken Blake on Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:40:52 -0700
typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
On 2/22/2020 4:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes:
[]
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.

I remember being very impressed with that option, in WP 5.1, the last
one I had much to do with - the last (I think) DOS one.


No, the last DOS version was 6.2.


(Of course, DOS
- or character mode, if you wish - wasn't very WYSIWYG, so reveal codes
was useful.)


To me the main value of reveal codes (not "revealed codes") is when you
want to remove or change a formatting option Reveal Codes makes it very
easy to put the cursor in the appropriate place. It's much harder in Word.

If it matters to you, then it can be a deal breaker. If it
doesn't, then use what you are use to.

Like news readers. Personally, I like either nn or rn. But those
worked in a Unix shell account I had back in the dark ages.

Over the years I've known many people who hated WordPerfect and greatly
preferred Word. Their main objection to WordPerfect was reveal codes,
even though its presence is optional and it's very easy to turn off if
you don't want to see it.

And that is another issue: "too much work" to configure something.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?



You do realize that the massive floods ending up in multiple groups started out as a joke about hacking Google. Obviously, the sole undertaking that is important to Shadow is arguing he is "better", and if he can't have that he will flood to effectively kick truly honest people down... there is no stopping him.

I reported him years ago. As expected, it did nothing to derail the dolt.



--
Do not click this link!!!
https://youtu.be/48_DdtLGR9s
https://youtu.be/m37dF5X2S-4
https://youtu.be/5OfWsoPAg7o
Jonas Eklundh Communication AB