fix prc-tools 2.x URL (patch to REQUIREMENTS etc)

2003-02-27 Thread John Marshall
I noticed in David's recent REQUIREMENTS patch that the nearby prc-tools link is way wrong and in fact, because Palm is a corporate entity and thus doesn't understand URL longevity, 404-compliant. This patch fixes it there and in the FAQ. Furthermore it has never been reasonable to refer to "Palm

Re: Couple of db format doc suggestions

2003-02-27 Thread Bill Janssen
> Could we update the format doc to say that a 0x5c (multiple embedded image > tag) needs a 0x08 (anchor ends) after it? I wouldn't think that it would > since I didn't think there was any text in an image tag, i.e. > but it does need one to end the link to the big image. It could only be a hin

Windows explode

2003-02-27 Thread Edward Rayl
I don't have a C compiler on my Windoze box. Does anyone have an explode.exe? ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev

Re: Couple of db format doc suggestions

2003-02-27 Thread Michael Nordström
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003, Bill Nalen wrote: > Also, is the default category record working right? Have you seen any problems with it? > Do the corresponding categories have to exist already in the viewer > or will they be created if they don't exist and there is room in > the category list on the vie

Re: Couple of db format doc suggestions

2003-02-27 Thread Chris Hawks
---On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 08:54:31 -0500, Bill Nalen said > In the mailto record, the doc says that the strings field says "a list of > To, Cc, Subject and Body strings (if any)". I think a null terminated > string needs to be present for each of these even if the length is zero. No, if the of

Couple of db format doc suggestions

2003-02-27 Thread Bill Nalen
Could we update the format doc to say that a 0x5c (multiple embedded image tag) needs a 0x08 (anchor ends) after it? I wouldn't think that it would since I didn't think there was any text in an image tag, i.e. but it does need one to end the link to the big image. Could we also update the doc

Re: fix prc-tools 2.x URL (patch to REQUIREMENTS etc)

2003-02-27 Thread Michael Nordström
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003, Michael Nordström wrote: > remove support for the obsolete A4 based version of prc-tools. Well, since I haven't seen any objections to this, from now on only prc-tools 2.x is supported (the code might build using Code Warrior, too) /Mike