DrawText( ... ) for HTML?
in [MFC]
|
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 29 Sep 2009 04:15 See below... On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:41:55 +0200, Simon <bad(a)example.com> wrote: >> Simon, >> That rant was not at all necessary. Dr. Newcomer has decades of >> experience, and on a daily basis, he helps about 10 people for each one >> he pisses off. I'd prefer that he take a less condescending tone in >> most of his emails. He gets pretty upset about things that have annoyed >> him for years. Those who learn from him often get irritated and >> insulted in the process, but the lesson still gets taught most of the time. > >And there is nothing wrong with that, (but some might argue that this is >the wrong NG for a life lesson), the problem is when he randomly insults >people like he did here and in other threads. > >Insulting people simply because they have not followed his life textbook >is not helpful, (and almost always impractical in real world businesses). >It doesn't teach hobbyist how to develop and it does not help developers >meeting various project requirements. > >> By the way, you still seem to have missed the point that >> uninstalling IE doesn't have anything to do with uninstalling MSHTML. >> MSHTML will be there, but it's not a matter of "IE not really been >> uninstalled". MSHTML is not part of IE. > >Really, am I looking at the same thread? >- I ask for a function API to output HTML. >-- Goran suggests using CHtmlView >--- I reply that I have nothing against using CHtmlView but I have >concerns about users not having IE installed. >---- Goran thinks that mshtml.dll is still around even if the ie.exe >might not be. >---- Joe tells me that I am confused. **** You were confused. You confused IE with the HTML control. You were worried about solving a problem that cannot exist in the real world. You thought that presence/absence of IE had something to do with the presence/absence of the HTML control. Then, after you were told they were different, you asserted that it was still a problem. **** >----- I reply to his insult by showing that many sites offer ways of >completely removing IE, (to me, uninstalling means removing everything >including the HTML/DLL engine). **** But since this has nothing to do with the HTML control, it was irrelevant. You only stated it because you were confused and believed that removing IE would remove the HTML control, which you had already been told was not how it worked **** >------ Alex points out that dependencies are probably not removed. >------- Joe insists that I am confused. >------- David suggests that this might not entirely be true, (but that >if the DLL is missing it is probably the fault of the user). > >Where does it look like I am confused? **** You that that IE had something to do with the HTML control. **** > >I ask for an API, someone suggests embedding IE, and I am then told that >I confuse IE with one, (or more), DLLs, (that apparently is not really >part of IE after all). > >If the DLL has really nothing to do with IE then people must stop using >terms like 'embedding IE' in your app. **** OK, so the original answer was sloppy, which led to your confusion. It doesn't mean you weren't confused. **** > >Either way, throwing insults around was not helpful in this case. Joe >could have called me 'confused' 200 times, that would not have helped. **** I was not insulting you. I was pointing out that you were confused. You clearly were confused. So why is pointing it out considered an insult? **** > >Telling Alex and others that actually IE is not embedded at all but that >a DLL is needed, would have been a lot more useful. > >Hell, maybe someone should tell MS that they are also 'confused', >(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/42h6dke4%28VS.80%29.aspx) > **** That documentation is confused also. It dates back to the era when IE was a download, and had not been installed on the machines. This changed about 1995 with Win95 and for NT, it changed in 1999 with Win2K. And, as pointed out, the HTML control is a separate control which comes with all machines (without which, most machines would not function at all, and applications such as Outlook could not work. Much of the online help would not work). If you had read this and believed it, then you would be confused. You would be confused because Microsoft has bad docs, but it doesn't mean you are not confused. But anyone who "uninstalls" IE is essentially asking for serious problems. Note that "uninstalling" is not the same as "changing the default browser". You do not need to support every possible weird software configuration in the world. You should not worry about people uninstalling IE. It isn't a common practice. Like a lot of old MFC documentation, that article probably hasn't had anyone who understands what is going on look at it in 15 years. I've found MFC documentation that still uses Win16 terms for features that have never existed in Win32. So I have no problem telling MS that they, too, are confused. And that their confusion is confusing the users. Did you look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa741312(VS.85).aspx which clearly points out that IE is merely an app that uses the control. **** >"The WebBrowser ActiveX control (and therefore CHtmlView) is available >only to programs running under Windows NT versions 4.0 or later, in >which Internet Explorer 4.0 or later has been installed." > >Joe should tell them that they are confused and that only the DLL is needed. **** I will probably add this to my list of MSDN documentation errors. And it is actually an ActiveX control. It is a critical part of so many apps that it could not possible be removed. joe **** > >Simon. Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: David Ching on 29 Sep 2009 12:40 "Simon" <bad(a)example.com> wrote in message news:ew1eYjNQKHA.1512(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > In fact I'd be interested to read something from MS themselves to indicate > that the requirement for CHtmlView, (for exampe), is a DLL and not IE and > that that DLL is not removed when IE is removed. > CHtmlView requires Internet Explorer version x or later, OR Windows version y or later (which has the necessary DLL's built-in regardless of whether IE exists as a clickable icon or not). That's all MS should have to say. I mean, MS doesn't say, you can call GetModuleFileNameEx(), but only if the user hasn't deleted kernel32.dll! -- David
From: David Ching on 29 Sep 2009 12:48 "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in message news:7me3c5h9stkq3e976l0bf1ugvqjdh3hd9m(a)4ax.com... > But since this has nothing to do with the HTML control, it was irrelevant. > You only > stated it because you were confused and believed that removing IE would > remove the HTML > control, which you had already been told was not how it worked > What is your definition of "removing IE"? There are 3rd party apps that (I believe) mshtml.dll, shdocvw.dll, as well as iexplore.exe. > I was not insulting you. I was pointing out that you were confused. You > clearly were > confused. So why is pointing it out considered an insult? .... > That documentation is confused also. .... > If you had read this and believed it, then you would be confused. You > would be confused > because Microsoft has bad docs, but it doesn't mean you are not confused. > .... > So I have no problem telling MS that they, too, are confused. If there is a life lesson to learn here it is that some people find being told that they are "confused" to be insulting, and some people don't. I myself become a bit defensive at the term, although I've learned to quickly tell myself that the person calling me confused is uncouth, but that he may have a point. In this case, I don't think Simon was confused. He was concerned the user would have deleted necessary DLL's required for CHtmlView to work properly. Whether you call that "removing IE" or not is beside the point and should have been obvious without splitting hairs of what that meant. > But anyone who "uninstalls" IE is essentially asking for serious problems. > Note that > "uninstalling" is not the same as "changing the default browser". You do > not need to > support every possible weird software configuration in the world. You > should not worry > about people uninstalling IE. It isn't a common practice. > I agree, and this is the answer to the question, not some discourse into what it means to remove IE, or what does it mean to be confused, or what does it mean to be insulting. -- David
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 29 Sep 2009 15:36 But it turns out my first response to something complex that I have not fully understood is "I'm confused", state why I'm confused, and expect the other party to explain to me what is really going on to clarify why I have made a mistake, usually a logical conclusion that does not necessarily follow how something actually works but which I derived from the explanation, which is often incomplete. I consider confusion to be a normal state when trying to learn something completely new. I consider the resolution of my confusion to be an essential part of my learning process. joe Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: David Ching on 29 Sep 2009 17:31 "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in message news:d9o4c55sn9u3cquna0s8m0usbj03l06baj(a)4ax.com... > But it turns out my first response to something complex that I have not > fully understood > is "I'm confused", state why I'm confused, and expect the other party to > explain to me > what is really going on to clarify why I have made a mistake, usually a > logical conclusion > that does not necessarily follow how something actually works but which I > derived from the > explanation, which is often incomplete. I consider confusion to be a > normal state when > trying to learn something completely new. I consider the resolution of my > confusion to be > an essential part of my learning process. And that is a perfectly reasonable explanation that proves we don't always correctly infer the intent of what is stated. Knowing this, it behooves the sender to choose words that are not so misunderstood, and the receiver to not be so sensitive). -- David
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: MFC CHtmlView::GetSource bugs on Connect Next: FTPFindFirstFile unicode |