Ed Leafe wrote: > On Dec 5, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Paul Newton wrote: > >> A bit like DBFs ... OK I know there isn't really a comparison but it >> seems to me that the DBF format has, perhaps surprisingly, stood the >> test of time > > My impression is the opposite: DBFs have not been sufficient, so the > Fox team has repeatedly modified it to add things that are now > considered essential. That's resulted in Fox data only being readable > by Fox itself for the most part. Back when DBF was a standard, any > app could read/write to it.
The PDF format has changed, too. Acrobat Reader 4 could have a hard time reading today's PDF's. -- pkm ~ http://paulmcnett.com _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
