User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2013/March

Thanks for citation work for Signalling theory‎
Dear Rjwilmsi, thank you so much for your tireless work behind the scenes making all of our articles quietly better cited. It's very much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

format = PDF
In this edit to Lissamphibia, you "templated" a reference, introducing the  template including. Aside from your edits, this specification is rarely used, for good reason: it clutters up the endnote with a (PDF) that is wholly unnecessary since the &#8203; symbol provides the relevant information. Besides being a distraction for the reader, this usage often leads&mdash;as it did in this case&mdash;to inconsistent citation style, since other .pdf references in the same article do not use this parameter. I have removed the  from Lissamphibia and encourage you to refrain from using it in the future. That said, your cleanup work has certainly been very helpful in other articles. Peter Brown (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't recall us having discussed this before. If you think the use of PDF is always clutter then please post at Help talk:Citation style 1 because your opinion of the use or not of this parameter goes against the documentation and examples at cite journal. If you're right it's clutter then the citation templates would need to be updated. Let me know if you post on the CS1 talk page. Thanks Rjwilmsi  16:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither Help:Citation Style 1 nor Template:Cite journal/doc recommends the use of ; they merely explain what the parameter does.  Whether to use it is up to the editor, and I am discouraging it, especially when it degrades a citation that starts out fairly satisfactory.  You are right about the examples at cite journal; I have removed the parameter from these and am discussing the matter at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Peter Brown (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cannot compile latest AWB with .net 4.0
I'm unable to compile svn8971. I'm getting the following error: Could not locate the assembly Microsoft.mshtml

Looking around, it appears Net 4.0 no longer comes with Microsoft.mshtml. In theory, you can add a reference to mshtml that is built in windows. I no longer get errors, but I do get warnings.... Will investigate more later. Bgwhite (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In SharpDevelop, goto Project -> Add Reference -> COM. Scroll down to "Microsoft HTML Object Library" and the click Select.
 * 2) In AWBWebBrowser.cs change "using mshtml;" to "using MSHTML;"
 * 1) The type library importer could not convert the signature for the member '__MIDL___MIDL_itf_mshtml_0001_0042_0010.hbmpChecked'.
 * 2) At least one of the arguments for 'ICanvasPixelArrayData.GetBufferPointer' cannot be marshaled by the runtime marshaler.  Such arguments will therefore be passed as a pointer and may require unsafe code to manipulate.
 * 3) The type library importer could not convert the signature for the member 'DISPPARAMS.rgdispidNamedArgs'.
 * Works OK for me on SharpDevelop on Win 7 and MonoDevelop under Linux. I committed an update to the solution file including a reference to "Microsoft.mshtml", a bit of Googling suggests this might come from Office or Visual Studio, you might be able to download the single dll from one of the dll sites. Rjwilmsi  08:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd expect MonoDevelop under Linux to not be affected. I thought you don't use .Net 4.0?  There should be no problems with any .Net versions except 4.0 and above.
 * New version of SharpDevelop is out, so I downloaded that. I also cleaned out any settings files, so I can start with a clean slate.
 * I still get the "Could not locate the assembly Microsoft.mshtml" error. However, when I do the first two steps above, it now compiles and runs just fine.
 * The reason I found for Microsoft not putting mshtml into .Net anymore is to allow the latest version of IE to be used and not have .Net be held back. I've got IE 10.
 * Be interesting to see what Magioladitis gets when he tries to compile. Bgwhite (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Boy, what a major difference having 'preview' working again at 100%. One huge, gigantic thank you for that. Seeing a page's layout exactly how it will look in a web browser is a godsend. Bgwhite (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)