Hey - - -- - -- -- --

I'm confused. (Before anyone else: "So what's new?")

I am writing text to an Adobe proprietary format, called a tagged- 
text file. Don't worry about that, not too important to the story,  
but for the curious, is an ASCII file; the format is a sorta-hybrid  
among XML, plain ol' ASCII, HTML, and WordStar <g>.

The issue is this: In a PHP program that creates these files, I  
append a CHR(13) to the end of each paragraph. Works swell, merges  
into Adobe files like magic. I have another such function in a VFP  
program (9 SP-whatever-the-latest-one-is). I do the same thing --  
adding the CHR(13) -- to each paragraph. Adobe products don't  
recognize it as being anything but a vanilla ASCII file, and all of  
the 'tags' are ignored. Part of the Adobe file format defines it as a  
Windows-coded ASCII file.

If, however, I open the file in VFP (just with a modi file), make a  
trivial change (like: add a space, delete it again) and Save it,  
Adobe recognizes it(!).

I think it has something to do with line endings, but I can't see any  
difference.

My actual technique in the VFP program is to do a #DEFINE CRLF CHR 
(13). I started with CHR(13)+CHR(10) but it didn't work, either. I  
have tried putting the CHR(13) or CHR(13)+CHR(10) in there without  
the defined CRLF.

Question: I need to look at these files at the most intimate level to  
figure out what the differences are. Tools? Ideas?

Thanks,

Ken

_______________________________________________
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/5990b58c-0c81-449a-9361-0ce8e55a6...@information-architecture.com
** 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.

Reply via email to