Those 3 links are perhaps useful to demonstrate/ support what I was saying about Microsoft doing
strange change things… ( unless I missed something again ) ….
The copy on learn claims to be an article from 2006. - Well I suppose technically speaking that statement could be correct. But it’s just a very tiny part of the original, (a brief not particularly useful introduction part), - so just a small part of what you get for the first link on Wayback Machine. On the Wayback machine the first link has a lot of captures around 2008. So the dates may tie up approximately.
Use the first link normally and you get redirected to a newer article that does have about half of what is in the original, and it looks more spacious, perhaps that ls in many people’s eyes, more pretty and less intimidating, or suits better a smart phone view, but it’s missing things. We touched on this phenomena a
few weeks back on some other documentation – If someone already knows the subject and maybe at some point saw the original, then a quick glance at what’s at the new link may look to be the same. So in good faith they might pass it on, and can’t understand why the person does not seem to quite get out of it what you might have expected he should. (So they think he is an idiot, and move on, Lol! )
The third party link is a good copy of the original. That sort of thing was another possibility I was thinking about to get a good copy of something: ( I Had a quick go a while back myself at copying the html from a web page, and then, after enabling HTML at a forum post, I then, like an ignorant fool pasted it in…. it sort of seemed to work originally, but made a mess in the forum everywhere else, Lol. I had, of course, already heard that pasting a lot of html in a forum post was bad, .. but like the kid that had to touch the stove after his mum told him it was hot …
Never mind I learnt a few things
as we fixed it . )
_.____
So, once again, it looks like having the original link, to use on Wayback machine, can be a good thing to have, especially for Microsoft stuff from the last 10-15 years
_.____
Me, and generally here at Eileen’s Lounge, not done so much with Reg Ex, or only a few posts I know of, so far,
https://eileenslounge.com/viewtopic.php ... 55#p176255
https://eileenslounge.com/viewtopic.php ... 08#p288908
https://eileenslounge.com/viewtopic.php ... 44#p316944
It has a strong rival here with the Wild thing in Word VBA, which some people here are very good with.
I have little experience myself, but I had heard that Reg Ex can fall down a bit working on large amounts of data, but I think you or someone told me more recently that is less so to do with the thing itself but more to do with using it in VBA.
_.____________________________________
_.______________________________________
Sometime in the future I must have another good look at your
OLE offering . I have gone into a depression often enough for a year or two, when trying to make some Layman sense of what the whole
COM, OLE, Actiive-X stuff is about. Very interesting though, what you did, and you can even copy and paste what is finally there and you get the formatting. Originally when I saw it, I thought it was some sort of image.
So
_ you are taking in as text the weird looking universal format text that is rtf, when opened with a text editor.
_ Your OLE object knows what to do with it, just as Word does.
It is interesting to see a working example of a
COM, OLE, Actiive-X thing. They have mostly been to me a vague conceptual thing that I can’t understand.
Next time I am feeling masochistic enough to think about
COM, OLE, Actiive-X stuff again I will take a re-look here.
As much as I gathered it's all some sort of deep down fundamental Microsoft innards stuff to allow embedding Poppy up things or permanently there things (and it helps to make Windows insecure and unstable). Perhaps what you have done is some home made version of things we can emplant / paste in something like Excel thanks to that underlying
COM, OLE, Actiive-X innards stuff?
( My emplanted OLE Poppies are not going so well this year, They’re having some mental crises of wanting attention again. I have to keep telling them all is OK when they pop up, very annoying, but they don’t let me move on with things I wanted to keep going on in the background unless I personally
manually step in and tell them all is OK . The
ones outside where very beautiful last year)
( I think I noticed the deliberate mistake you put in to check if we was awake, - I expect
Input(LOF(1), 1) should be better
Input(LOF(hFile), hFile) ? )
Alan
_._______________________________________________
Hi
HansV wrote: ↑01 May 2024, 19:56
... turns out that each page is a section, so you actually want to extract sections
A quick question, partly out of interest, but it might have some small relevance as well … would these "
sections" be the things I was seeing yesterday in my dismal attempt to get text from that
.rtf file, ( via a stopover in a Word saved as a
.htm file and then opened in a text editor) ? – These "
<div" (container?) things
Word Sections in rtf htm text.JPG
Until yesterday I had assumed that there was just one of those, (maybe my files had been always small), and I had assumed they effectively held all the text. As it turned out there were 3 of them, so I had to loop and concatenate the text from them to get it all in
my coding offering
Alan
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.