Alan, thanks for your explanation.

Let me take this opportunity to make clear what I really wanted to express some messages back in this thread. I wrote: Lisa, I get the impression that you are in narrow contact with the vfpt. Somebody else made clear to me that 'narrow contact' can be interpreted to mean 'minor', 'little'. But what I really meant was 'close contact'. I'm Dutch you know, not a native speaker...

By the way, I look forward seeing you and Ken next week in Haarlem.


>I don't know that they'd feel comfortable replying to this, so I will. <g> Every version of VFP since 3.0, at least has included work from members of the community. For instance, back when Ken Levy and I worked at Flash, he and I (and another Flasher, Paul Bienick) did work on VFP3 - including the class browser, samples, some docs, etc. Lisa and Colin have years of experience with the report writer, with reporting applications and with XML. So, when we decided to add the functionality to VFP9, and knew we wanted to keep backwards compatibility, we asked them if they'd be interested in helping to drive this project. Thankfully, they did. And the work speaks for itself.
>
>yag
>
>>Colin,
>>
>>Pardon me for replying one more time. The first time I didn't realize that you are related (husband?!) to Lisa. And only after reading Cathy Pountney's fine article in the new Foxtalk I got the impression that you and Lisa have had special influence on the new Report Writer. Cathy writes: "I'd like to thank the entire Fox team, as well as Colin Nicholls and Lisa Slater Nicholls, for the major effort that went into this release!"
>>Could you or Lisa elaborate on this a bit? I'm interested. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>>Peter -
>>>
>>>Pardon me for butting in,
>>>
>>>>> [Lisa wrote] about a 'tremendous amount of effort' that was
>>>> required to (my words/interpretation) replace the old preview
>>>>> routine. In my opinion that effort was not really successful,
>>>>> at least in some aspects. Two arguments regarding the design
>>>>> of the zoomlevel functionality:
>>>>>
>>>>> - The 'fit to window' zoomlevel should never have been given
>>>>> the number 10. Instead, a negative number would have been
>>>>> better.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Instead of 1-9, values 10-500 (for the time being) is better.
>>>>> So, a percentage. If there's a practical problem with certain
>>>>> percentages/values, the internal routine can easily round up
>>>>> or down, again, for the time being.
>>>
>>>You're entitled to your opinion, Peter. I'm sure the VFP team are reading this thread so I'm sure your ideas will be given due respect.
>>>
>>>Fortunately for us, VFP 9.0 really has busted report preview wide open in terms of what creative people will be able to implement and hook into the product and their applications. I guarantee that you'll see some drop-in replacements that remedy the deficiencies of the current xbase preview application.
>>>
>>>Will you be going to the Frankfurt conference in November?
>>>
>>>- Colin