id enhancements to Livecode. For example, Richard mentioned the
opportunity for a simpler pdf viewer in his response (Community PDF Project
quoted below).
Tim Bleiler, Ph.D.
Instructional Designer, HSIT
University at Buffalo
> On May 4, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Richard Gaskin
> wrote:
&g
ry fast now that 8 is done.
I hope that some or most of the add-on widgets that are offered in the business
edition are also offered a la carte for those of us with more limited needs and
budgets. The Livecode PDF viewer is an example of something that might do well
as a separate option.
Tim Bl
Thanks Mark!!
Sorry to take up everyone’s time on that, but good to know I guess.
Tim
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 10:22 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> On 2016-03-04 16:12, Tim Bleiler wrote:
>> Thanks Mark,
>> I submitted the file in bug report 17067.
>> Tim
>
>
Thanks Mark,
I submitted the file in bug report 17067.
Tim
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 5:38 AM, Mark Waddingham wrote:
>
> On 2016-03-03 20:45, Tim Bleiler wrote:
>> It probably doesn’t matter much as long as it’s made clear what
>> encodings are allowed. I would guess most u
Thanks Jim,
Since you aren’t having the problem I tried a couple of other things. First, I
had been dragging the file to the Livecode icon in the dock, so I tried opening
it through the menu as you had done but I still get a file is not a stack
message. I then shut my whole system down and trie
me point but was not
> averse to my suggestion of only supporting UTF8 with or without BOM.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 4 Mar 2016, at 6:17 AM, Tim Bleiler > <mailto:blei...@buffalo.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> I guess that leaves the question of whether this
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Peter Bogdanoff wrote:
>
> It would seem that script-only stacks would not be able to be locked—have the
> password property set.
>
> This would seem to be a limitation for commercially-released projects with
> library stacks, unless they are a substack of someth
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Tore Nilsen wrote:
>
> I think TextWrangler is a better choice than TextEdit for this purpose. In
> textWrangler you can specify both UTF 16 and Unix line endings.
>
TextWrangler shows a working script only stacks as UTF-8, with BOM and Unix
(LF).
A “broken” on
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> I wonder if it needs to use LC's native line ending, ASCII 10, rather than
> ASCII 13 that many Mac tools use.
Thanks Richard,
First, do you know of way to set this in TextEdit? I don’t see anything that
can change that. Second, if tha
On Mar 3, 2016, at 1:12 PM, Peter TB Brett wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2016 17:48, Tim Bleiler wrote:
>> In the blog post, Mark states that "The fact that script only stack files
>> really are just text files is really important! It means you can edit and
>> create them in
they wouldn’t have run into this. Any suggestions?
Tim Bleiler, Ph.D.
Instructional Designer, HSIT
University at Buffalo
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscri
x27;t tested this on Windows in many years, but on Linux there are no
> such limitations on button sizes.
That's too bad. There are times when larger controls would be appropriate, for
example in a program for children.
Tim Bleiler
___
use-liveco
Thanks John, that does affect the size of the menu that pops up but I'm
interested in the size of the actual button that the user clicks on. I don't
see any way to change that and I was wondering if it's supposed to do that.
On Apr 16, 2014, at 11:01 AM, John Dixon wrote:
> They will... but yo
Just curious, could someone explain why buttons with style set to "menu" and
menuMode set to either "option" or "comboBox" don't draw/render beyond a
certain height?
Thanks,
Tim Bleiler
___
use-livecode mailing
On Mar 19, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
> Maybe it helps (or hinders) to consider the fact the following renders as
> empty in a web browser, even though clearly there is code content present:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So given what HTML is, checking if the HTML content of a field is empty
> do
On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> I do not see this as a bug. Is it possible that there is some HTML convention
> that requires some kind of tag/ending tag to be present for a page to be
> considered an html page? And I agree with Richmond that if a field is empty,
> there is
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
> That's a matter of interpretation. By "clearing the htmlText" I mean
> "resetting it to "".
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
> Jacque,
>
> In the past 15 years I never had any problems with htmlText always containing
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:18 AM, J. Landman Gay wrote:
> To me it looks like the engine wraps the html in opening and closing tags,
> and when there is no content it forgets to take them off. I think the
> logical concept of empty outweighs the technical meaning of the html and it's
> a bug.
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Richmond wrote:
> When I was a kid I wondered why babies were born the way they were, rather
> than in hygienically packaged eggs
> like chickens.
Great! Thanks, Richmond. Now I've got to worry about that, too!
Tim
___
u
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:09 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
> This clears the text, the htmlText, the unicodeText and the rtfText of the
> field. Why would you want to test that only the htmlText is empty?
Yes, all true, it's definitely easy to deal with. I stumbled on it by accident
and thought it
On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Richmond wrote:
> Well, of course that's logically fairly crappy.
>
> The way to test if an htmlField is empty is surely something like this:
>
> if the htmlText of fld "f1" is not "" then
> put "Yippee-Do, 'tis empty my friend!"
> end if
Sure, it's easy to dea
On Mar 19, 2014, at 9:39 AM, Klaus major-k wrote:
>> Are others seeing this and is it a bug?
>
> since is in fact the HTML equivalent to "empty/no text" I would not
> consider this a bug :-)
Thanks Klaus, I thought I should check on that before putting in a bug report.
It seemed too obvious
xt of the field is empty but the htmlText of the field is not.
If you set the htmlText of the field to empty then test if the htmlText of the
field is empty it is reported as false.
Are others seeing this and is it a bug?
Tim Bleiler, Ph.D.
Instructional Designer, HSIT
University at Bu
23 matches
Mail list logo
