OK, I shouldn't have used the word "standard" (even though that KB article does <g>). What I was trying to say was that the spec is published and therefore perhaps won't require the degree of reverse engineering that trying to directly construct a doc file would. In addition, if theings chatge then there will probably be some notice of the change.
Cheers,
Andrew
>>Houston's already given you the .doc sites, but I'd also encourage you to look at RTF - it's supposedly an "open" standard, so is less subject to violent change without notice.
>
>Nope, it's a Microsoft specification, and they can change it anytime they like. <g> See
this Microsoft KB article for details.
If we were to introduce Visual FoxBase+, would we be able to work from the dotNet Prompt?
From Top 22 Developer Responses to defects in Software
2. "It’s not a bug, it’s a feature."
1. "I thought I fixed that."
All my FoxTalk and other articles are available on my
web site.
Unless specifically identified otherwise, anthing posted here is purely my opinion and may or may not reflect the policies or practices of Microsoft.
