At 2:09 PM -0500 3/3/06, Barry Traver wrote:
It's dangerous to make logical assumptions without doing the actual experiments.
Agreed; it's also dangerous to make assumptions based on actual experiments (i.e., the assumption that your results will apply to others, or will continue to apply in the future). That's why, even if Word actually displays one of the nicer behaviors in your own tests, I wouldn't conclude that this incorrect file type idea is a good one. Give a program garbage input, and you should assume it will produce garbage output -- even if it appears to work in some tests.
BUT it gets much more interesting. I also changed the extension of an .rtf file to .doc, and when I loaded it into Word, not only did Microsoft Word not ask me anything about extensions or conversions or anything else, but also it treated the file (with a filename ending in ".doc") as an RTF file, maintaining the font size and type, the formatting, etc. when it loaded it in.
That's a good test (on Windows -- of course on Mac it may well be different) of whether it works on your machine, and I'll admit I'm surprised that it handles it so well. But I still don't think lying about the type is a good idea.
Now, I happen to be working in Windows, but I wouldn't think Microsoft Word would be any less intelligent in the Mac version.
Hah. Your faith is inspiring. :)
Microsoft Word (again, this works for Windows; I can't say whether it will work on a Mac) will not only load in the .doc file _as styled text_, but also does not object your doing a File -> Save, _even though_ it is keeping up the charade by saving the file as a file with the .doc filename extension but saving the file in RTF format!
Oi -- how ghastly! Best, - Joe -- Joseph J. Strout [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
