Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005, Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wilhelm Sanke wrote: If you turn on the threeD property it should. What happens there when you do it? > >> >> Turning the threeD property on or off does not make a difference here. Works like a charm here, providing the sty

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

Wilhelm Sanke wrote: If you turn on the threeD property it should. What happens there when you do it? Turning the threeD property on or off does not make a difference here. Works like a charm here, providing the style is also changed to "shadow". Anyone else not able to turn off XP rendering of a

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005, Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (snip) I think I learned some of it in an email with Scott Raney when he was doing support for MetaCard (the OS X appearances were put into the engine before its acquisition by RunRev); when I first saw the relationship between borderW

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

Wilhelm Sanke wrote: The workaround you proposed, style "shadow" and setting "shadowoffset" to zero, does not solve the problem. If you turn on the threeD property it should. What happens there when you do it? What really works is setting the "Look and Feel" to "Windows emulated" or to "Window

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

Dar Scott wrote: On Dec 30, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Rev now supports native appearances for fields on XP when the field's default values are left in place (borderWidth set to 2). So what your screen show at is showing is XP's rendering of the

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

On Dec 30, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Rev now supports native appearances for fields on XP when the field's default values are left in place (borderWidth set to 2). So what your screen show at is showing is XP's rendering of the field border. Y

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

On Dec 31, 2004, at 3:40 PM, Dar Scott wrote: I'm not seeing this with my XP (or my OS X). For any look and feel, I get no gap. OK. Now I see it. It seems to only occur with 3D on and my tests had it off. Dar ** DSC (Dar Scott Consulting & Dar's

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

On Dec 31, 2004, at 3:11 PM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote: What really works is setting the "Look and Feel" to "Windows emulated" or to "Windows 95" (sic!) with Metacard. Consequently, if you got stacks that need to have fields with a borderwidth of 2 in non-native XP look, you should care for that in a

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Richard Gaskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Welcome to XP. I am uncertain whether I should be happy about this - not your "welcome", but about XP Rev now supports native appearances for fields on XP when the field's default values are left in place (borderWidth set to 2). So

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

> In the meantime a workaround is to set the style of the field to > "shadow" instead of "rectangle" or "scrolling", and then to prevent the > shadow from drawing set its shadowwidth to 0 (zero). Shadow-style > fields are always drawn by the engine, so you should get what you're > after with t

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

Wilhelm Sanke wrote: I still am interested to know if anybody can see this, too. It would be hard to believe that the problem/bug only appears on my XP computer - or only on a few with a similar configuration. But of course everything could be possible. Welcome to XP. Rev now supports native app

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Dar Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't see this on OS X or XP with Revolution 2.5. I should clarify. I made some fields with 3D turned off and a border of 2. I set the left and right so that I thought they should butt. They do. (snip) Maybe you have focusBorder on? I ha

Re: Problem with field borderwidth 2

On Dec 29, 2004, at 2:06 PM, Wilhelm Sanke wrote: Has anybody else noticed this or can verify my observation? I don't see this on OS X or XP with Revolution 2.5. I should clarify. I made some fields with 3D turned off and a border of 2. I set the left and right so that I thought they should butt.

Problem with field borderwidth 2

A stack developed with Metacard 2.5 contains several rows of adjacent fields - with the default borderwidth of 2 when the stack was created. The adjacent fields are placed relative to each other in such a way that the borders form smooth vertical and horizontal lines between the fields, giving