|
|
In 3.5.11.27 Quilted the red text that appears between the graphs giving
the c0 value appears to be missing, I've checked with the 3.5 help file
6.7.11.27 and it appears fine there, can anyone confirm this before I make
a fool of myself in p.doc.inbuilt again?
V3.6.1.id8.win32
--
Phil Cook
--
All thoughts and comments are my own unless otherwise stated and I am
happy to be proven wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote in message
news:opsd0no8akefp2ch@news.povray.org...
> In 3.5.11.27 Quilted the red text that appears between the graphs giving
> the c0 value appears to be missing
Hi Phil, yeah, I see that (finally, not been reading here lately). Looking
at the source code the lines from the 3.5 CHM file, such as:
<font size=-1><cite>Quilted pattern with c0=0 and different values for
c1</cite></font>
aren't added. But the image ALT tags still show how the graphs use certain
values of control0. No idea why, just confirming your observation. :)
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
And lo on Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:55:14 -0500, Hughes, B.
<bob### [at] charternet> did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamdeckingdealscouk> wrote in message
> news:opsd0no8akefp2ch@news.povray.org...
>> In 3.5.11.27 Quilted the red text that appears between the graphs giving
>> the c0 value appears to be missing
>
> Hi Phil, yeah, I see that (finally, not been reading here lately).
> Looking
> at the source code the lines from the 3.5 CHM file, such as:
>
> <font size=-1><cite>Quilted pattern with c0=0 and different values for
> c1</cite></font>
>
> aren't added. But the image ALT tags still show how the graphs use
> certain
> values of control0. No idea why, just confirming your observation. :)
Thanks for that, I couldn't decompile the povray36.chm to check, but
looking on the online version at 2.5.11.27 (?) the cite's missing, I'll
post it as a potential problem.
--
Phil Cook
--
All thoughts and comments are my own unless otherwise stated and I am
happy to be proven wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|