On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 19:41:01 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Hunsberger wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:57:13 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[catching up the list - guys, you were so verbose lately !]
> >>
> >>Reinhard Poetz wrote:
> >>
> >
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
[catching up the list - guys, you were so verbose lately !]
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Just wondering why in the examples always the FormsTransformer is used
although the use of the FormsGenerator is possible. Does this have a
special reason?
The FormsGenerator produces an XML r
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:57:13 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[catching up the list - guys, you were so verbose lately !]
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Just wondering why in the examples always the FormsTransformer is used
although the use of the FormsGenerat
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:57:13 +0100, Sylvain Wallez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [catching up the list - guys, you were so verbose lately !]
>
> Reinhard Poetz wrote:
>
> > Just wondering why in the examples always the FormsTransformer is used
> > although the use of the FormsGenerator is possible
[catching up the list - guys, you were so verbose lately !]
Reinhard Poetz wrote:
Just wondering why in the examples always the FormsTransformer is used
although the use of the FormsGenerator is possible. Does this have a
special reason?
The FormsGenerator produces an XML representation of the f
Just wondering why in the examples always the FormsTransformer is used although
the use of the FormsGenerator is possible. Does this have a special reason?
--
Reinhard
