I'm not saying I AGREE with the response but rather that I think that will
BE the response, however, it will be asked in a few ways.
Andrew MacNeill
AKSEL Solutions
Better Solutions for Better Businesses
http://www.aksel.com
Email: andrew .AT. aksel .D.O.T com
Blog: http://akselsoft.blogspot.com
FoxShow Podcast: http://www.thefoxshow.com
Toll Free: 877-825-9191
Local: (613) 851-4496
Fax: 208-723-9532
MSN Messenger: akselsoft@hotmail.com
Skype: akselsoft (www.skype.com)
Gizmo: akselsoft (www.gizmoproject.com)
-----Original Message-----
From: profoxtech-bounces .AT. leafe .D.O.T com [mailto:profoxtech-bounces@leafe.com] On
Behalf Of Charlie Coleman
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 10:21 AM
To: profoxtech .AT. leafe .D.O.T com
Subject: RE: Ask Ken Levy a question
At 04:44 PM 9/29/2005 -0400, Andrew MacNeill wrote:
>I think the argument that would come back on that is that since the DBF
>file is a public format and the MS team has "messed" with it, it really
>no longer is a DBF file, based on its structure.
...
I don't think that's a valid response. The DBF import by Excel and Word were
not "VFP" DBFs. They were the standard Dbase III (or Dbase IV?) format.
Those type tables are essentially no-brainers to make with VFP (e.g. COPY TO
... TYPE FOX2X - or even just make a free table). To get to VFP DBFs, you'd
go through ODBC. Which brings up an irritating subject to me....
Personally, I would much prefer ODBC support be brought back to life (all MS
products). ODBC is a nice, open, standard. A lot of software can use ODBC.
But I think that request is beyond Ken's purview and power. MS is trying to
force everyone into using only their software, so they have very little
interest in supporting 'open' standards (IMO).
-Charlie
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2005 Andrew MacNeill |
