Hello all,

I've got a number textfiles which contains multi-byte sequences (like
doublequotes), and would like to view the contents in wordpad as RTF
(currently they are displayed as plain text)

I know I can just change the files extension or add a BOM marker to the
contents of the file itself, but I would like not to touch them (keep them
origional).

I've just been looking at the commandline arguments to write.exe, but do not
directly see a way to tell the program as what format it should load the
textfiles (no "load as text" or "load as RTF").

I did see some reference to using templates, but it was/is not clear to me
if they can be used for thos purpose..

Question:
Is there a way to tell write/wordpad to load a file as either text or RTF ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've got a number textfiles which contains multi-byte sequences (like
> doublequotes), and would like to view the contents in wordpad as RTF
> (currently they are displayed as plain text)
>
> I know I can just change the files extension or add a BOM marker to the
> contents of the file itself, but I would like not to touch them (keep them
> origional).
>
> I've just been looking at the commandline arguments to write.exe, but do not
> directly see a way to tell the program as what format it should load the
> textfiles (no "load as text" or "load as RTF").
>
> I did see some reference to using templates, but it was/is not clear to me
> if they can be used for thos purpose..
>
> Question:
> Is there a way to tell write/wordpad to load a file as either text or RTF ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
> .

Well, one quick way is to simply copy the .txt file and work with that.
I'd do that for the occasional usage.
How often do you want it?

Ed

On 6/5/2023 2:42 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've got a number textfiles which contains multi-byte sequences (like
> doublequotes), and would like to view the contents in wordpad as RTF
> (currently they are displayed as plain text)
>
> I know I can just change the files extension or add a BOM marker to the
> contents of the file itself, but I would like not to touch them (keep them
> origional).
>
> I've just been looking at the commandline arguments to write.exe, but do not
> directly see a way to tell the program as what format it should load the
> textfiles (no "load as text" or "load as RTF").
>
> I did see some reference to using templates, but it was/is not clear to me
> if they can be used for thos purpose..
>
> Question:
> Is there a way to tell write/wordpad to load a file as either text or RTF ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>

When a program does not support extensionless coercion (this isn't Linux after all),
you might have to resort to other means. In the first example, content is piped
to a textual program. The program makes mention of an "Edit control",
which maybe has something to do with overriding the parsed format
(taking it off vanilla text).

"Piping to notepad"

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140908-00/?p=53

"Change one line of code, and this program will launch Wordpad instead"

I can find a mention of an edit control here.

https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/4739/Simple-Wordpad-in-Managed-C

Maybe you can build something, to force an edit session into RTF parsing ?

And I don't think LibreOffice would work, as it adheres too closely to
the Windows UI to be fooled into being controllable. It would need the .rtf
file extension, and an actual RTF header (whatever that is).

Paul

Ed,

> Well, one quick way is to simply copy the .txt file and work with that.

And ofcourse that didn't even cross my mind ... :-)

Thanks for mentioning it. Although crude, its certainly something I could
use..

> I'd do that for the occasional usage.
> How often do you want it?

Not too often, but I can use it now, and its a setting that could be usefull
future.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Paul,

> "Piping to notepad"
>
> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20140908-00/?p=53
>
> "Change one line of code, and this program will launch Wordpad instead"

The thing is, I can already open the file in either notepad or wordpad. But
both of them display the file contents as plain text. I need to tell
wordpad somehow that it should instead display the text as RTF.

> I can find a mention of an edit control here.
>
> https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/4739/Simple-Wordpad-in-Managed-C
>
> Maybe you can build something, to force an edit session into RTF parsing ?

I certainly can build something. In fact, some time ago I already found a
similar tutorial-like document and have been playing around with the
RichEd32 component.

The thing is, as a (hobby-)programmer I'm supposed to be lazy and use
whatever is already available instead of trying to recreate it (though as a
/hobby/ programmer I might just do that, recreating, for the heck of it).
:-)

Although I would like to see if there is something like a commandline
argument available (adhering to the KISS principle), I will keep this in
mind.

Thanks.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message <u5k04f$9e85$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 5 Jun 2023 08:42:11,
R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> writes
>Hello all,
>
>I've got a number textfiles which contains multi-byte sequences (like
>doublequotes), and would like to view the contents in wordpad as RTF
>(currently they are displayed as plain text)

If by "view" you mean "not edit" ...
>
>I know I can just change the files extension or add a BOM marker to the
>contents of the file itself, but I would like not to touch them (keep them
>origional).

.... and by "not touch" you mean not even change the extension:

then I think Ed's suggestion of "temporary copy" sounds like a fair one
- which could be automated into a batch file. If you're not wanting to
change the extension, you're not going to be able to double-click the
files in question - that's AFAICS just a stick of how Windows works.
Whether batch files support drag-and-drop, I don't know.
>
>I've just been looking at the commandline arguments to write.exe, but do not
>directly see a way to tell the program as what format it should load the
>textfiles (no "load as text" or "load as RTF").

Even if there were, I can't see any way other than batch file to treat
some .txt files one way and others differently.

Something like (store as w.bat):

copy %1.txt temp.rtf
write temp.rtf
del temp.rtf

if "write" is the correct command; you'd call this by saying

w <filename>

where filename is _without_ extension. If batch files _do_ support
drag-and-drop, then in the "copy" line you'd leave out the ".txt".
>
>I did see some reference to using templates, but it was/is not clear to me
>if they can be used for thos purpose..

Again, I can't see a way to invoke templates for some .txt files and not
others.
>
>Question:
>Is there a way to tell write/wordpad to load a file as either text or RTF ?
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never make the same mistake twice...there are so many new ones to make!

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 08:42:11 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've got a number textfiles which contains multi-byte sequences (like
> doublequotes), and would like to view the contents in wordpad as RTF
> (currently they are displayed as plain text)
>
> I know I can just change the files extension or add a BOM marker to the
> contents of the file itself, but I would like not to touch them (keep them
> origional).

Wordpad use auto detection. When I create a new rich-tech document (with
formatting ) and safe it as RTF format, close Wordpad, renamed the file to
TXT, then open it, Wordpad opens it as RTF complete with formatting.

If your TXT file (with RTF data) is still opened as plain text, it's likely
that its RTF data is not a fully compliant RTF format.

> I've just been looking at the commandline arguments to write.exe, but do not
> directly see a way to tell the program as what format it should load the
> textfiles (no "load as text" or "load as RTF").
>
> I did see some reference to using templates, but it was/is not clear to me
> if they can be used for thos purpose..

Templates is used only for creating a new file from Explorer.

> Question:
> Is there a way to tell write/wordpad to load a file as either text or RTF ?
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I did a quick look at the disassembled code. I found an undocumented switch
`/restart`, and a possible switch `/t`. Haven't got the time to find out
what they are for and how to use them, though. Pity that Wordpad doesn't
complain when given an unsupported switch.

JJ,

> Wordpad use auto detection. When I create a new rich-tech document
> (with formatting ) and safe it as RTF format, close Wordpad, renamed
> the file to TXT, then open it, Wordpad opens it as RTF complete with
> formatting.

That might be because a standard RTF file starts with "{\rtf1\", which is
easy to check.

In my case I've got multi-byte (UTF-8) sequences in the text, but not the
above file-ID.

> If your TXT file (with RTF data) is still opened as plain text, it's
> likely that its RTF data is not a fully compliant RTF format.

Worse, the document doesn't have /any/ RTF elements. Just multi-byte
sequences that I would like to have displayed as the (UTF-8) characters they
represent.

>> I did see some reference to using templates, but it was/is not clear
>> to me if they can be used for thos purpose..
>
> Templates is used only for creating a new file from Explorer.

If I can figure out how to use to get what I want than I will create the
second program using them. :-)

> I found an undocumented switch `/restart`, and a possible
> switch `/t`

I found some info here :

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/list-of-microsoft-word-2010-command-line-startup-switches

[quote]
/ttemplatename Starts Word with a new document based on a template other
than the Normal template.

Example To start Word with a document based on a template called
Myfax.dotx, stored on the C drive, type the following at the command prompt:

/tc:\Myfax.dotx
[/quote]

Alas, it only mentions usage for creating a new document. Nothing about
overriding the type of an existing one.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote

| I've got a number textfiles which contains multi-byte sequences (like
| doublequotes), and would like to view the contents in wordpad as RTF
| (currently they are displayed as plain text)
|

You seem to be confusing UTF-8 with RTF. If it's
plain text then it's going to display as plain text. There's
no formatting data for RTF. If the UTF-8 is showing as
ANSI then just clean out the UTF-8. Replace the tilted
quotes or whatever. In nearly all cases with English,
UTF-8 is just ASCII with funky quotemarks and spaces
rendered as UTF-8. As far as I know, RichEdit doesn't
read UTF-8.

I have the RTF 1.9.1 spec here. The only mention of
UTF-8 is this:

\urtfN
Identifies an RTF file in which all text characters are encoded in UTF-8.
Only binary data escapes this transformation. Word does not read this
encoding of RTF.

The default charset is ANSI. Other options are things like Mac format.
But there is this note under charset options:

\ansicpgN
This keyword represents the default ANSI code page used to perform the
Unicode to ANSI conversion when writing RTF text. N represents the code page
in decimal. This is typically set to the default ANSI code page of the
run-time environment (for example, \ansicpg1252 for U.S. Windows). The
reader can use the same ANSI code page to convert ANSI text back to Unicode.
If it appears, this keyword should be emitted in the RTF header section
right after the \ansi, \mac, \pc or \pca keyword. Possible values include
those in the following table.

I'm not clear about what that's saying, but it sounds like that
if you prepend a header including \ansicpg1252 then you
might get your UTF-8 auto-converted. Of course, that
still won't give you any RTF formatting unless you add the
RTF markers for it.

R.Wieser wrote:
> Ed,
>
>> Well, one quick way is to simply copy the .txt file and work with that.
>
> And ofcourse that didn't even cross my mind ... :-)
>
> Thanks for mentioning it. Although crude, its certainly something I could
> use..
>
>> I'd do that for the occasional usage.
>> How often do you want it?
>
> Not too often, but I can use it now, and its a setting that could be usefull
> future.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser
>
>

You could do it in one simple load of Wordpad.
Load Wordpad
Open text file
Save as RTF
Open RTF file

Ed

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 08:42:11 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>I've got a number textfiles which contains multi-byte sequences (like
>doublequotes), and would like to view the contents in wordpad as RTF
>(currently they are displayed as plain text)
>
>I know I can just change the files extension

No, you can't. Changing the extension doesn't change the format of the
file. It's just a change of name.

> or add a BOM marker to the
>contents of the file itself, but I would like not to touch them (keep them
>origional).

You can keep the originals, but if you want to view them in rtf
format, you would need to make an rtf copy. Open the file in a word
processor, then save it as an rtf file, which you can then view.

>I've just been looking at the commandline arguments to write.exe, but do not
>directly see a way to tell the program as what format it should load the
>textfiles (no "load as text" or "load as RTF").
>
>I did see some reference to using templates, but it was/is not clear to me
>if they can be used for thos purpose..
>
>Question:
>Is there a way to tell write/wordpad to load a file as either text or RTF ?
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

Newyana2,

> You seem to be confusing UTF-8 with RTF.

It looks like it. :-(

> As far as I know, RichEdit doesn't read UTF-8.

As most always when I hear something definitive like that I like/try to
verify it. :-)

As I so happen to have a small test program containing a RichEdit20 control,
and it displayed a file containing single line encompassed in those UTF-8
double-quote sequences without a problem.

The same file loaded into word.exe doesn't. Might be because of the
auto-detect you spoke of.

> I'm not clear about what that's saying, but it sounds like
> that> if you prepend a header including \ansicpg1252 then you
> might get your UTF-8 auto-converted.

Although it ws not my intention to use it, I remembers something called the
UTF-8 BOM (the file starting with three bytes : EF BB BF). Starting the
above testfile with it causes the double-quotes to be displayed in word.exe
..

> Of course, that still won't give you any RTF formatting unless you
> add the RTF markers for it.

I made a mess of that. :-( I don't need any RTF interpretation, just that
the UTF-8 sequences are recognised and displayed as the characters they
represent.

tl;dr:
Although I used the wrong description, my question is still the same : how
can I tell write.exe that it should interpret UTF-8 sequences (regardless of
what it auto-detects the file contains).

Regards,
Rudy Wiser

On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:14:38 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>tl;dr:
>Although I used the wrong description, my question is still the same : how
>can I tell write.exe that it should interpret UTF-8 sequences (regardless of
>what it auto-detects the file contains).

Does it have to be write.exe? I wonder if one of the 3rd party general
purpose text editors would behave differently/better for you, such as
Notepad++ or TextEdit? They seem to have handlers for some things, but I
don't quite know how to test what they'd do with your specific files.

Char,

> Does it have to be write.exe?

No, not really.

But I always first try to find an answer using whats already installed on my
'puter. Notepad is the other available editor, but that one doesn't play
nice with LF line -ends.

If that won't work its early enough to see what other, more involved
solutions there are.

As long as I just want to be able to read the text there are a number of
possibile solutions, from copying the file and than changing the extension
to pulling it thru a bit of VBScript and either adding an UTF-8 BOM, or
converting the UTF-8 sequences to an ASCII character myself.

IOW, first KISSing it, and only if that doesn't work looking for more
complex solutions.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote

| But I always first try to find an answer using whats already installed on
my
| 'puter. Notepad is the other available editor, but that one doesn't play
| nice with LF line -ends.
| | If that won't work its early enough to see what other, more involved
| solutions there are.
| | As long as I just want to be able to read the text there are a number of
| possibile solutions, from copying the file and than changing the extension
| to pulling it thru a bit of VBScript and either adding an UTF-8 BOM, or
| converting the UTF-8 sequences to an ASCII character myself.

That can be a pain. I keep a VBScript on my desktop
to convert files from Linux or similar to CrLf line endings.
With UTF-8 I usually don't bother much, and I read virtually
all plain text in Notepad. If I want to save a file I typically
clean it of UTF-8 with a drag-drop VBScript. Since all my files
are in English, UTF-8 is more a theory or a hassle than a
format.

A RichEdit control for v. 2? I'm surprised. VB6 has a control but
it's only a wrapper for riched32, which is v. 1. Riched20 is the
name for v. 2 and 3. Msftedit is v. 4.1. Not a big deal, but newer
versions have added functions. I just happen to know this
because I've done a lot of work with using richedit in software.

I use the Richedit DLL directly and added UTF-8 support at
some point, but if I remember correctly it was only added with
richedit v. 3 and even then the parameter was undocumented.
It's set in the 2nd parameter of EM_STREAMIN and EM_STREAMOUT
messages when loading or saving a file. Possibly setting the
codepage by speccing it in a prepended RTF header will work, but
I guess it will depend on which version you're using.

I know that you're a very discerning computer user and thus
use XP, but on my XP riched20 is v. 3, so you might be OK there.

In message <291s7ihhfffci1hhk2gqv3pbr24d1962l1@4ax.com> at Mon, 5 Jun
2023 08:59:39, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> writes
>On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 08:42:11 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>I've got a number textfiles which contains multi-byte sequences (like
>>doublequotes), and would like to view the contents in wordpad as RTF
>>(currently they are displayed as plain text)
>>
>>I know I can just change the files extension
>
>No, you can't. Changing the extension doesn't change the format of the
>file. It's just a change of name.

But it changes what the OS uses to open it. If I change (rename) a .txt
file to .doc, the OS will open it with Word, assuming I haven't messed
with the default associations. That's what Rudy meant there, I think.
But he didn't want to change even the names of these files.
>
>> or add a BOM marker to the
>>contents of the file itself, but I would like not to touch them (keep them
>>origional).
>
>
>You can keep the originals, but if you want to view them in rtf
>format, you would need to make an rtf copy. Open the file in a word
>processor, then save it as an rtf file, which you can then view.
>
Just copying it to a format for which the default opener knows how to
handle the sequences in question would work - it wouldn't have to pass
through a processor.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Find out what works. Then do it. That's my system. I'm always surprised it
isn't more popular. - Scott Adams, 2015

Newyana2,

> That can be a pain.

Not sure what that refers to ... assuming its about the "converting the
UTF-8 sequences". Yes, it is. /Way/ too many codepoints to be converted,
with most of them having no similar-looking ASCII equivalent. But it at
least works for those opening and closing doublequotes, as well as a number
of others (like dashes, single quotes, copyright symbols).

I've been using such a script to scrub saved HTML pages. Converting
line-ends, UTF-8 sequences and removing any-and-all active content - With a
bit of build-in website-specific scrubbing the end result is often a
fraction in size of what I received and much easier to the eyes (for one
thing, little-to-no coloring).

> and I read virtually all plain text in Notepad.

I did too, until I ran into problems with those LF line ends.

> A RichEdit control for v. 2? I'm surprised. VB6 has a control
> but it's only a wrapper for riched32, which is v. 1. Riched20
> is the name for v. 2 and 3.

There is a good possibility we're talking about the same control. Ah yes,
the RichEd20.dll shows a "product version" of 3.0 - which is ofcourse
absolutily logical, no ? <grin> The RichEd32.dll on my machine is only a
small wrapper to the RichEd20.dll .

> I just happen to know this because I've done a lot of work with
> using richedit in software.

I have very little need for a RichEdit control and thought it would be an
absolute beast to work with. Though when I did "bite the bullet" (to see if
I actually could work with it) its basic usage wasn't much of a problem.
Phew. Still have to find some real usage for it to get myself to play with
it some more though.

> I know that you're a very discerning computer user and thus
> use XP,

:-) Thats a friendly way to put it. Recently I had someone refer to my
usage of XP and Outlook Express 6 as "old" and "old". As if "old" is the
same as "bad". Oh well.

>but on my XP riched20 is v. 3, so you might be OK there.

Yup, a bit of checking (see above) shows mine actually has the same version.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

J(ohn?),

> But it changes what the OS uses to open it. If I change (rename) a .txt
> file to .doc, the OS will open it with Word, assuming I haven't messed
> with the default associations. That's what Rudy meant there, I think.

Yes, and no. Its rather possible for a program to be linked to multiple
file extensions, and it doing a check of the extension of the opened file to
decide how to behave (hobby programmer talking here. :-) )

Even though I would not mind at all if the same editor would pop up after
the extension change, in this case it would not matter much if would change
too.

> Just copying it to a format for which the default opener knows how to
> handle the sequences in question would work - it wouldn't have to pass
> through a processor.

Yup. First seeing if solution that costs zero-to-little changes/effort is
available, and only if that doesn't exist look for other, more
complex/involved ones.

And over-engeneering is a thing. As I again had to experience when I posted
a question about how to, in Firefox, copy text outof a description of a
weblink. Suggestions to finding myself an add-on where given, but it could
be done by simply keeping ALT down while using the mouse to do a standard
text select.

IOW, the intention of the add-on suggestions where ment well, but way past
what was actually needed.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote

| > I know that you're a very discerning computer user and thus
| > use XP,
| | :-) Thats a friendly way to put it. Recently I had someone refer to my
| usage of XP and Outlook Express 6 as "old" and "old". As if "old" is the
| same as "bad". Oh well.
|

Yes. Anyone "with half a brain" is saving up right
now for an Apple VR headset. So maybe you have
a whole brain. :)

| >but on my XP riched20 is v. 3, so you might be OK there.
| | Yup, a bit of checking (see above) shows mine actually has the same
version.
|

You said a control. riched20.dll is the system library,
which can only be used as system-drawn via API. You
have a dispatch interface wrapper control, like a scriptable
OCX, around that?

I actually wrote something like that myself, though mine
doesn't include UTF-8 option. In my software I wrote
a routine to recognize UTF-8 and load/save accordingly.
Though it's really only relevant for HTML. I doubt that
things like script or CSS can be written with non-ASCII
characters, since the code itself is in English.

Newyana2,

> You said a control. riched20.dll is the system library,
> which can only be used as system-drawn via API.

I'm referring to it as a contol as that is how its referred to it in the
resource file describing a dialog :

CONTROL "",1001,"RichEdit20A", ...

And yes, the dialog (and all the controls on it) is than created thru an API
call, "DialogBoxParam".

> You have a dispatch interface wrapper control, like a
> scriptable OCX, around that?

No, no OCX wrapper for it. Not for this control anyway. I did wrap some
other controls so I can make a simple dialog with some controls on it from
within VBS, but have not had any use for a RichEdit control yet.

> I doubt that things like script or CSS can be written with
> non-ASCII characters, since the code itself is in English.

The class and ID names are chosen by the webpage designer ...

Though its possible that an "only ASCII" requirement applies to them.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 07:53:55 +0200, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>> I know that you're a very discerning computer user and thus
>> use XP,
>
>:-) Thats a friendly way to put it. Recently I had someone refer to my
>usage of XP and Outlook Express 6 as "old" and "old". As if "old" is the
>same as "bad". Oh well.

"Old" is certainly not the same as "bad." Using what you know and like
is fine. But especially when it comes to operating systems, "old"
definitely has its downsides. The older it gets the more likely it is
that you're going to want or need some new hardware or software that
isn't compatible with it.

If you haven't yet run into such a problem, fine. But one of these
days...

> I did too, until I ran into problems with those LF line ends.
>

Some of us don't have this problem because our settings can wrap the
lines automatically. For some people going into View > Word Wrap is too
tedious but when done only once can solve most problems like this that
don't actually exist in real life. Some people like to moan about
everything when they feel lonely and sad and it goes on for days.

"Jack Lemmon" <invalid@invalid.net> wrote

| > I did too, until I ran into problems with those LF line ends.
| >
| | Some of us don't have this problem because our settings can wrap the
| lines automatically. For some people going into View > Word Wrap is too
| tedious but when done only once can solve most problems like this that
| don't actually exist in real life. Some people like to moan about
| everything when they feel lonely and sad and it goes on for days.
|

Wordwrap is not the same thing as line returns. Sometimes
people want line returns.

Also, a single Chr(10) without a Chr(13) in at least some versions
of Notepad will show as a box. It becomes a funky character
corrupting the text, rather than just being harmless.

Moral of the story: Don't assume other people are lazy jerks
and that you know better. Rudy is expert with computers, and
in fact he thrives on tedious. :)

Ken,

> "Old" is certainly not the same as "bad."

I know that, you know that. But some people only want/need/demand to have
the latest-and-advertised-greatest bling-bling, and will regard everything
else - even if its what they used yesterday - as inferior. yup, a status
thing.

> The older it gets the more likely it is that you're going to want
> or need some new hardware or software that isn't compatible with it.

True. And when that happens its early enough to switch to something else.

> If you haven't yet run into such a problem, fine. But one of
> these days...

I already have gone to one such change six years ago, when my W98 'puters
motherboard died and W98 drivers for a new motherboard (and associated
hardware) was ofcourse nowhere to be had. Result : I'm now running XP.

Yes, you read that right. Up until about late 2017 I ran W98.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Newyana2,

> Wordwrap is not the same thing as line returns. Sometimes
> people want line returns.

I get the strong feeling he knows, but doesn't care. Its all about having
something to latch an accusation onto.

> Also, a single Chr(10) without a Chr(13) in at least some versions
> of Notepad will show as a box.

That is what it does here.

> It becomes a funky character corrupting the text, rather than
> just being harmless.

For me it doesn't really corrupt the text. What does however is causing it
to become a brick as wide as the editor allows and going unbroken from top
to bottom. Not having paragraphs makes such text rather tiresome to read -
especially when that brick of text is multiple screens long. :-\

> Moral of the story: Don't assume other people are lazy
> jerks and that you know better.

Did you notice that this is "Jack Lemmon"s only post here (in the whole
retention of this newsgroup) ? My guess is that he's someone I know who has
some beef with me, and has made up a name to hide behind.

> Rudy is expert with computers,

I'm definitily not - or at least I do not regard myself as being one. There
is way too much I know next to nothing about.

I just happen to latch onto a problem and won't easily let go until I've
looked at it from multiple sides, in search of the simpelest solution.

IOW, most people stop when having *an* answer. I'm prone to keep looking, in
search for what I think is the simpelest one.

> and in fact he thrives on tedious. :)

Well, as an Assembly programmer I can't really deny that, can I ? :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser