If only your name was Francis, I could say "Lighten up, Francis." :-)
The DWF toolkit is a free SDK, produced AS-IS with no guarantees. Have you
read the license agreement that accompanies the distribution? While the SDK
is used internally by many Autodesk products, and thus it receives testing
indirectly by its internal use, the public release of the SDK is practically
unsupported by Autodesk, and as such they do not typically fund resources to
thoroughly QA or document the SDK. These tasks are typically left to the
developer, in this case, Jeffrey Klug -likely the architect, tech writer,
developer, tester, and de-facto support resource for the DWF SDK. (He
doubtless also has several other projects to which he is assigned.) The real
problem is that the AutoSketch generated DWF file got included in the
distribution. Shame on them for that. But that is where the shame ends.
It seems to me that Autodesk has gone beyond the mark in trying to address
your concerns. They have addressed all of the issues you raised, written
code to prevent these problems from happening again, and have been very
understanding during your insulting attack. Your manner is out of place in
what is supposed to be a technical forum that provides "peer to peer"
support. When Jeffrey posts to this group, he does so as a peer. He happens
to be a really cool peer, because he has inside knowledge, but he is still a
peer.
One retort might be "Well if they are not going to support it, they should
not post it." Autodesk could do that. But I don't think the folks who have
been adept enough to benefit from the toolkit would appreciate that
approach.
"igor1960" wrote in message
news:2814446.1083815407351.JavaMail.jive@jiveforum2.autodesk.com...
> This is becoming laughable: I didn't attach that "bad file" -- it's not my
file -- this file is distributed by YOU... I'm just trying to help here....
> Anyway, looks like we have different understanding of what DwfToolkit is
for: I thought it's suppose to be an SDK for developers to generate Dwf
files readable by Dwf viewer...
> To you looks like it is something else, which I didn't figure out yet...