I was just reading a thread on the board about the rules. Then i was browsing through the Win32 reference and came upon this:

The clipboard is user-driven. A window should transfer data to or from the clipboard only in response to a command from the user. A window must not use the clipboard to transfer data without the user's knowledge.

Just how seriously is one suppose to take such a statement?

If i had a purpose for making a window that did actually use the clipboard without the users knowledge, would i be committing a sin in the eyes of M$

Just what is the deal here? Are we talking big brother or what?

Have a happy day.:alright:
Posted on 2002-05-03 13:58:52 by titan
I don't think the warning is that strange. I use the clipboard all the time and I would be pissed off if some program would clear it's contents because it needs to do some internal stuff.

Imagine you've copied a few files using ctrl+c, and after some time browsing to the right location to place the files, you find out the files aren't in the clipboard anymore. That would be annoying to say the least.

Thomas
Posted on 2002-05-03 14:06:55 by Thomas
it's the same problem with those moron spamwebmasters: it's my browser window, not theirs. You may not spawn pop-ups, moving things, fullscreen browser windows,..... without asking me for permission. :mad:
Posted on 2002-05-03 14:39:03 by Hiroshimator
Well that puts it all in perspective.

Hiro i could not agree with you more. Those stinking popups actually make me want to get rid of my internet connection. Who actually reads them anyways accept for first time users of the internet. This commercialism of the internet is destroying what it was meant for in the first place....the availability and transfer of information.

Ok i've vented...i feel better
Posted on 2002-05-03 15:38:59 by titan
if only you could control script execution on site or even site/function level :(

that would be awesome.
Posted on 2002-05-03 15:42:54 by Hiroshimator
Just what is the deal here?

I can clirify a little bit, since was forced to learn it and refresh the
group of M$ rules that include the thing. When was in M$ certifications.

It's about so to called Win LOGO rules.
Especially started to be stress after Win 3.1.
M$ certified programms about compatibility to Win LOGO.
(After it is passed M$ Win Logo could be placed on box)
That ensures that some design and user logic of any Win prog must be the same.
Idea behind it (it's not my idea - don't critisize me for it), was that
since it is a lot of common between programms, it will be easier for user if the common staff will be done in the same way in all apps.
For example all Window apps working with any kind of docs (including by the term any data file for example wav) should have Menu, and have File group in the menu, and have OPEN,CLOSE etc. options.

The question may remain - OK let it be all in the same way,
but in what way among many possible ways?
The answer is - in a way that M$ suggested.

They of course can't call you a criminal if you don't do it in their way, they just wouldn't certify you app with Win Logo.
Posted on 2002-05-03 15:57:48 by The Svin
hmm if you hate popups and all those other things use OPERA a truly cool webbrowser it WILL allow you to controll all of that it even has options that will let you disable all image loading. HA TAKE THAT AD BANNERS!!!. and turn them back on with the touch of a button. It is much better than INTERNET EXPLODER IMHO.
Posted on 2002-05-03 16:09:41 by dionysus
I wish Micro$oft would follow thier own rules.

I was pissed off on more than one occasion when I would copy some text off IE which I wanted to print only to fire up Word (I believe 2000) and have it clear the clipboard. :(

It doesn't seem to happen on my new install though so I wonder was their some 3rd party software conflict.
Posted on 2002-05-03 18:38:32 by Eóin
I like the idea behind windows logo certification. It's nice being
able to use virtually all windows applications without getting adjusted
to a totally interface all the time. Linux has suffered greatly from the
lack of standards in the past... it's getting better now, but it's still
messy.

Dunno if all the logo requirements are cool, haven't really read much
on the requirements (I'm sure that some of it will seem silly), but
imo it's much better to have a ruleset with some possibly silly rules,
than no ruleset at all.

I'm not saying that *all* applications should follow the rules strictly,
though. While a thing like (ab)using the clipboard is annoying, there
are situations where you can design more efficient/natural/neat :)
interfaces/applications if you don't follow the logo rules. I don't
think winamp would get a logo... it still uses ini files, has a somewhat
custom GUI, etc. Ok, perhaps not the best example, but I couldn't
really think of anything else.
Posted on 2002-05-04 01:35:19 by f0dder