Skip navigation
tfpeter
Currently Being Moderated

Using Tibetan in InDesign CS5

Aug 2, 2010 9:14 AM

Hi there,


Just bought the CS5 design standard package to upgrade my suite of applications at work. This brought me from Photoshop CS, where Tibetan unicode couldn't be inputted properly, to CS5 where it works beautifully, and from inDesign CS3, where I never had any problems with Tibetan, to inDesign CS5, where I can't seem to get it to stack properly no matter what I do.


My understanding of the way the Tibetan unicode works is that its based on ligatures, swapping out chains of characters for the appropriate stacked version, but surely inDesign CS5 doesn't contain less robust ligature handling than CS3? Perhaps its more complex and there are simply options that I need to dig up and turn on or off? Any ideas for what I can do to get Tibetan working properly in inDesign CS5 would be greatly appreciated.

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2010 10:28 AM   in reply to tfpeter

    Whaddya know, a Tibetan question pops up in the forums right before I go to work on a Tibetan formatting project...

    My understanding of the way the Tibetan unicode works is that its based on ligatures, swapping out chains of characters for the appropriate stacked version, but surely inDesign CS5 doesn't contain less robust ligature handling than CS3?

    No, I don't think that it'd swap them out for precomposed character-stacks - that was the way the old interim-Unicode Tibetan fonts worked, where all of the precomposed stacks were in the Private Use Area. (Miles and miles of precomposed valid Tibetan stacks, none of which had valid Unicode identities.)

     

    I don't have a known-good chunk of Tibetan Unicode to test, but what I've harvested from the internet looks like composes correctly in both CS3 and CS5. What font are you using? You're keying Tibetan directly into ID, right? You're not using text that someone else keyed into a word processing app?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2010 11:45 AM   in reply to tfpeter

    Well, you have one up on me - I can't read Tibetan at all. I was just generating monolingual-designer-proof outlines and PSDs of "If you need a Tibetan interpreter, please call (###) ###-####." I used Microsoft Himalaya, and the translator will look at my hard copy and hopefully not tell me that anything is broken. And, because I can't read a word of Tibetan, I can't find the fonts anywhere to download them and try them out - someone at tibetangeeks.com has been moving stuff around, and the link to the font is now broken.

     

    However, it's claimed that it is genuinely a Unicode font, so it should work just as well in CS5 as in CS3 unless they used some sort of dirty hack to position the vowels/stack components/etc. correctly. If you point me towards a valid download, I'll pop it open and take a look later today. Otherwise... perhaps you could take a screenshot and explain what's not displaying correctly? At least now I understand that it's mostly displaying correctly, with some bad positioning of only some of the glyphs. Did I get that right? At least, I know which glyph "ra" is, and I assume that what is being placed incorrectly is one of the vowel glyphs. If you have the generic Microsoft Himalaya (Vista and Win7 only, I think) can you re-set in that font and tell us if it has the same display issues?

     

    Also: I assume you're using Windows, right? Which version? It shouldn't matter (InDesign font display is completely separate from the host OS) but it might be worth knowing.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2010 1:24 PM   in reply to tfpeter

    So, I misunderstood your explanation, which was actually correct. I thought that you were saying that all characters were going to be swapped out with precomposed stacks, but it's only the stacks where the glyphs change when stacked that need to be replaced. There are a few ways to do it, but first off, before I even ask you for a text sample, try selecting your bad text, then finding the OpenType Options (in your paragraph style, hopefully, or elsewhere if you aren't using styles) to make sure that Contextual Alternates are turned on. Either a) they're off and need to be turned on, or b) your "legacy" fonts used some other hack to get this to happen - choosing an alternate glyph presentation based on the surrounding characters as context.

     

    Also, is your World-Ready Composer on?

     

    I'll look at the "legacy" fonts and the ID-specific font you tried, and then get back to you.

     

    Lastly - I'm not a graphic designer either. But I have been forcing complex-script text into InDesign since Indy CS came out, so I do have a bit of a background in what you're trying to do.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2010 1:42 PM   in reply to Joel Cherney

    I couldn't help myself. This stuff is 100% not Unicode. One of the ways you can test this yourself - open up the Glyphs menu, and choose your favorite Tibetan font. Mouse over one of the glyphs, and wait for the mouseover popup. What does it say? If it is actually Unicode, it won't say "NULL" or "Private Use Area" - it'll say the name of the character.

     

    These are actually worse than "NULL" or "Private Use Area" or "Unassigned" - when I mouse over anything in a font that starts with "Monlam" I see things like "LAO TONE MARK NGO" or "THAI CHARACTER LO LING." It's a hack job - and oh boy, I have way too much experience with hack jobs like this font. They're one of the best ways to hamstring a complex-script publishing project. They've written over the perfectly valid Unicode code points for other scripts with their own Tibetan glyphs. I mean, there's a right way to put glyphs into a Unicode font if you don't want to put 'em at their appropriate codepoints for the language, and these folks did not do that.

     

    So, the World-Ready Composer and Contextual Alternates won't help you at all, if you're using these fonts. I might be able to help you figure out a solution - but it could take many, many hours to figure out how things were encoded, if there's a conversion utility available, if there's a trustworthy conversion utility available... or, lastly, if you can keep on using your old pre-Unicode hack-fonts with some deft config work in ID or elsewhere. My initial guess on that last one is "no" at least without duct-taping those "legacy" fonts with even more hack-work.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2010 1:44 PM   in reply to Joel Cherney

    There's just no way that the "Monlam" you're using is the same one I downloaded.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2010 2:02 PM   in reply to tfpeter

    No apologies necessary; you're not slow, I'm just refreshing the forums far more often than I ought to. (Your question is way more interesting than the other things I'm working on...) I'll take a look at version 3 and see what happens.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2010 5:12 PM   in reply to tfpeter

    I'll try this at home tonight; I hate installing random text input methods on a computer that isn't a VM and can't be easily restored to a previous state with a click or three. (Especially when I can't read any of the menus.)


     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 2, 2010 6:43 PM   in reply to tfpeter

    Well, I have a hunch that I'd need to be able to read Tibetan to figure this out 100%. The installer is in Tibetan only, so I'm completely lost. However, it threw a whole bunch of new fonts onto my machine, all of which have "Uni" in the name and appear at the bottom of my fonts list with the rest of the standards-compliant complex script fonts. All good so far, right? However, they all have the same problem of writing over the Lao & Thai codepoints that I pointed out earlier. Like I said, this can hamstring your project. It was a fine hack back in the 90s, and it was an okay hack at the beginning of the decade. However, as I've learned a painful number of times, if someone duct-tapes complex script support together by working around a given app's Unicode support, then updates to that app can break the duct tape and cause major problems when attempting to update an old document with a newer version of the "same" app.

     

    I couldn't read the instructions or the installer, but at least one of the .msi files asked me to install a new locale that I did not recognize. It's been a loooooong time since that happened to me. It also asked me to install the infamous usp10.dll, which is infamous only if you've been paying attention to these matters for the last decade. (Some bright young Cambodian kids once downloaded that DLL, responsible for advanced character shaping for the subsystems of Windows that handle complex scripts, from the Microsoft VOLT site. They broke it open, rewrote it, and distributed it to all and sundry in order to enable almost-Unicode Khmer script, much like your almost-Unicode Tibetan. It was a bad, bad time to be a Khmer typesetter - I already had Cambodian fonts in ten different encodings, and the addition of even more fonts that were homebrew almost-Unicode fonts brought my entire Cambodian workflow to a shuddering halt for a few weeks while I tried to figure out what would work and what would not.)

     

    Anyhow, because Adobe is working on its complex-script-rendering-tools behind the scenes, they're causing your fonts to stop working. So, the question is: can CS5 actually render true-Unicode Tibetan successfully? Or do you need to continue using older workaround fonts? If you need 20th-century workaround fonts, it sounds like you may need to convert from the encoding you're currently using to a different one. Figuring out what we can do is going to be time-consuming; I just sent you a PM, we'll exchange email addresses, and then we'll hack through what works and what does not in InDesign, and then we can post a summary for the people who are going to find this thread with Google so that they don't have to be trailblazers.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 7, 2010 12:18 AM   in reply to tfpeter

    I am using InDesign CS5 on Mac OS X 10.6.4. It appears that CS5 has a severe regression in the handling of Tibetan versus CS4. It simply doesn't work with any of the usual fonts. Here are screenshots showing CS4 and CS5 entered using the Wylie keyboard supplied with Mac OS X:

    Screen shot 2010-08-07 at 12.39.42 PM.png

    as can be seen from the above Chris Fynn's font and Tony Duff's both work correctly in CS4 whereas the Mac OS X supplied font does not. In CS5:

    Screen shot 2010-08-07 at 12.48.46 PM.png

     

    here we see that Jomolhari sort of works except for the odd glyphs appearing to the left of the margin and the weird block at the end that seems to be an unselectable entity. Tibetan Machine Uni fails on virtually all stacks but not as badly as Kailasa - which fails also of course on CS4 as seen above.

     

    Too bad that we have regression but at least CS4 is still working with CS5 present on my system.

     

    Thanks,

    Chris

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 24, 2010 12:16 PM   in reply to tfpeter

    I'm suddenly too busy (as of twenty minutes ago) to spend any significant time on this today, but I will be checking up on this later this evening. I will certainly be testing those fonts you posted. But here are the basics:

     

    1) World-ready composer has to be on for any genuine Tibetan Unicode font to work

     

    2) The world-ready composer is hidden, because it's obviously not ready for prime-time. Tibetan is in the list of potentially functional complex-scripts, but Adobe hasn't tested it. That means that we (complex-script typesetters) don't get any guarantee that WRC will function without problems.

     

    3) Complex-script fonts for languages not spoken by millions of wealthy people tend to lag behind in font development, adherence to Unicode spec, et cetera. So, there are a wide variety of fonts out there, built with widely varying skills (drawing letterforms, using OpenType tables, respecting encoding specifications, et cetera). Seeing Tibetan mapped on to Thai and Lao codepoints looks very, very bad to me.

     

    4) 2 & 3 taken together mean: be very careful! Your font may not be built to spec. It may be built with certain assumptions (i.e. "will be rendered by Uniscribe") that may not pertain in your case.

     

    5) The font-rendering parts of InDesign (which I knew as "CoolType" back when it first emerged, although I think that may be an internal Adobe name for their type-rendering engine) operate completely independently of the host platform. So, there should be no difference between font rendering on Windows and OS X.

     

    6) Why would CS5 render things differently that CS4? This is aimed at xristyNepal: I think that all of the fonts you listed in your post but one are, to one extent or another, workarounds. So, my warning in no.4 applies very strongly here. The one exception is the Mac font supplied with OS X: I'd bet that it's an AAT font, not an OpenType font, and therefore wouldn't render correctly in InDesign at all, ever. I don't know, and I'll look into it, but that is my first guess.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 24, 2010 7:58 PM   in reply to Joel Cherney

    I don't know what spec you're talking about. Is that a spec for how to design fonts for the Adobe rendering engine used in ID?

     

    Jomolhari-ID in particular was designed by Chris Fynn one of the designers of the Tibetan Unicode standard. Jomolhari does include support for the Chinese GB/T20524-2006 pre-composed coding that resides in the PUA but that is in addition to the support for standard Unicode. Jomolhari ID was specifically developed with the purpose of being rendered by ID - I guess that's a workaround but since ID has its own rendering engine, then designing for it wouldn't seem to constitute a workaround.

     

    As a daily user of Tibetan in ID, it seems clear that there was a regression from CS4 to CS5 that remains in the current version 7.0.2.

     

    The IndicPlus plugin does solve the problem in CS5 but it was not needed in CS4 for typing Tibetan but was essential in CS3.

     

    X

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 25, 2010 10:25 AM   in reply to xristyNepal

    I didn't get a chance to do any testing last night; maybe tonight.

    I don't know what spec you're talking about. Is that a spec for how to design fonts for the Adobe rendering engine used in ID?

    No, I mean adherence to the Unicode spec for character encoding (don't encode Tibetan as Lao, use the PUA for glyphs with no codepoint defined in Unicode) and OpenType for building fonts (use OpenType methods to compose characters, lots of other details I don't know).

    Jomolhari ID was specifically developed with the purpose of being rendered by ID - I guess that's a workaround but since ID has its own rendering engine, then designing for it wouldn't seem to constitute a workaround.

    I wonder if it was designed to a) render in ID, or designed to b) render in ID with the World-Ready Composer turned on. If it's a), I'd wager that it would need to be updated from version to version as InDesign matures, and that there are probably workarounds (unlike the dirty hack of mapping Tibetan to codepoints for other scripts) built into the font. If it's b), then it should adhere to the OT spec. I won't know until I get a chance to look at my Tibetan sample text in all of these fonts. The page claims that it was made for "InDesign CS3 and above" but I don't know if that covers CS5, as workarounds for one version of InDesign may not work well in another version. I did pop it open and it looked well-made (lots of ccmp and rlig in there) but to be honest, I'm a little out of my depth in Tibetan - I can eyeball Khmer or Lao, for example, and know if they're composed correctly, but I don't do Tibetan often enough to spot all of the potential drops/misalignments/instances of poor composition/etc. I will do some tests and post some screenshots for you and get your feedback.

    As a daily user of Tibetan in ID, it seems clear that there was a regression from CS4 to CS5 that remains in the current version 7.0.2.

     

    The IndicPlus plugin does solve the problem in CS5 but it was not needed in CS4 for typing Tibetan but was essential in CS3.

    Please satisfy my curiousity - are you using the World-Ready Composer?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 25, 2010 12:03 PM   in reply to tfpeter

    In CS5, Jomolhari-ID looks like it might work with the WRC, and it certainly fails without. I sent you a PM - let us know how well it works.      

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 25, 2010 4:44 PM   in reply to Joel Cherney

    Peter reports that Jomolhari-ID composes correctly with the WRC turned on.

     

    I did a side-by-side between Jomolhari-ID and ordinary Jomohlari - no need to do a glyph-by-glyph when I can change the color of the second sample and superimpose - which also functions just fine with the WRC turned on. If I had a serious font editor, I'd pop 'em open to see what the difference is. However, it looks like the only difference that is obvious to the untrained eye is that the, uh, what do you call the intersyllabic dot? That glyph is kerned a bit tighter in vanilla Jomolhari. Both flavors of Jomolhari function well with the WRC turned on. Jomolhari-ID incorrectly composes a few stacks with the WRC turned off. Vanilla Jomolhari breaks many stacks when the WRC is turned off.

     

    At this point, I'd argue that if vanilla Jomolhari works well with the WRC turned on, there is no need whatsoever for Jomolhari-ID to exist. Obviously not the case for those folks stuck on CS3, of course.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 27, 2010 4:56 AM   in reply to tfpeter

    I agree that the Joomolhari and Monlam family as well as Tibetan Machine Uni all compose with the WRC on. The IndicPlus plugin that I mentioned earlier uses WRC since CS4 and used it's own approach in CS2 and CS3 and was really the ony useful way that I found of using Tibetan in CS3.

     

    Here in the area that I work the Tibetans prefer Jomolhari to the Monlam series. Finding the Monlam Uni OuChan 1 - 3 all too spread out and so on. There are many different tastes and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to not recommend Jomolhari or Monlam.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 1, 2010 7:34 PM   in reply to tfpeter

    We use Jomolhari for pretty much all Tibetan font needs, adjusting tracking, leading and so on as needed for  the application. We use it at 6 - 7 pt for zung sheets and discs used in large mani khorlos. We use it from 16 - 24 pt for various body text needs in magazines, brochures and the like. We use it at 72 - 288 pt for large posters and printed thangkas. We don't use InDesign for pecha owing to lack of necessary formatting support and use TibetDoc with Tibetan Chogyal.

     

    Chris

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 17, 2010 6:33 PM   in reply to xristyNepal4

    Chris:

     

    I am a dummy computer user. Can you explain what is the verdict on using monlam font on INDESIGN CS5?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 18, 2010 2:03 PM   in reply to tfpeter

    Thanks  you very much Peter. That was extremely helpful. Did save tons of hours.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 28, 2010 4:29 AM   in reply to d_sangmo

    So the minimal requirement to enable Tibetan rendering is a macro that enables the World-Ready composer by:

     

       var paragraphStyle = doc.paragraphStyles.item (somestylename); 
       paragraphStyle.composer = "Adobe World-Ready Paragraph Composer";

     

    This composer option isn't available through Indesign's GUI until at least one style uses the World-Ready composer.

     

    Afterwards new styles with the World-ready composer can be created using Indesign's GUI.

    See

    also here.


    All Tibetan Unicode fonts that work on Linux and/or Windows, including Jomolhari (no need for "Jomolhari ID") seem to work fine in CS5 once the World-Ready composer is active. I tested quite a number of different Unicode Tibetan fonts, without problems so far.

     

    Dom.

     

    Message was edited by: domischl (mistake corrected)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 1, 2010 11:34 PM   in reply to domischl

    Thanks to domischi!

     

    In the Chinese version of InDesign CS5

    This script should be change to <<paragraphStyle.composer = "Adobe 全球適用段落視覺調整";>> or it will not work.

    我寫了這個步驟說明在InDesign中文版中如何編排藏文

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 2, 2011 7:41 AM   in reply to domischl

    The combination Unicode Font + CS5 + WRC works almost fine... except some complex stacks such as བྷྲཱུ (wylie b+h+rU) that render like བྲཱུ (wylie b+rU), I cannot explain why as if I copy-paste into another software, I get the good stack, which should mean that the characters are OK but not the glyphs. On http://www.digitaltibetan.org/index.php/How_to_prepare_InDesign_CS5_fo r_Tibetan_script I can read that IDCS5 doesn't work with CCMP OpenType tables. Is this the same limitation or another one? Is there a workaround?

     

    Thank you,

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Aug 24, 2012 2:42 AM   in reply to tfpeter

    Just to clear things up....

     

    The Jomolhari fonts support ordinary Unicode for Tibetan script using only characters in the 0Fxx block; as well as  "precomposed Tibetan"  conforming to the Chinese national standard. This maps glyphs for precomposed Tibetan stacks to characters in the private use area (PUA) of the Unicode / iso10646 standards.[Precomposed Tibetan Set-A  U+F300-U+F8FF; Precomposed Tibetan Set-B  U+F0000-U+F16FF]

     

    The ordinary Jomolhari font uses some of standard OpenType features for Tibetan (ccmp, blws, abvs, calt and kern) under the Tibetan "tibt" script tag  and "dflt" language tag to compose glyphs. Where a precomposed glyph exists in the repetoire mapped to PUA characters, of course the lookups point to those glyphs (but not to the PUA characters). For ordinary Unicode it irrelevant whether or not those glyphs have PUA mappings as well.

     

    InDesign CS3 and later versions without WorldReady composer did not support Tibetan rendering. However I found that by putting lookups under the DFLT script tag (instead of the tibt script tag), and using only OpenType features used in Latin fonts, then the font would work in InDesign. However these lookups do not work in Microsoft applications etc. as only some Adobe apps support lookups under the "DFLT" script tag.

     

    So the Jomolhari ID font  was made to work in InDesign CS3 it uses OpenType features under the Default "DFLT" script tag and  "dflt" language tag tag to compose glyphs. These lookups are under features  (ccmp, rlig, calt  and kern) also used in Latin fonts. This means the font should work in InDesign without WRC.

     

    The reason for creating two versions of the font at the time was that, Microsoft applications, using Uniscribe, rendered Tibetan only using features and lookups under the "tibt" script tag and Adobe applications using Cooltype would render Tibetan only using lookups under the DFLT script tag. So Microsoft's Uniscribe layout engine ignored lookups inder the DFLT script tag but applied those under the tibt script tag - while Adobe's Cooltype engin in InDesign did the opposite.

     

    At first Jomolhari and Jomolhari ID each had only one set of lookups. So you could enter your text in MS Word using Jomolhari then bring the text into InDesign and everything worked fine.

     

    Later I put both sets of lookups into Jomolhari ID (version 3d and above) - so  a single font worked in both Windows and in Adobe applications. DDC Uchen, another Tibetan script font I made  later, works this way too.  There is no need for WRC with these fonts. If you do use WRC, there may be some potential for conflict between the two sets of lookups because both are being applied. They should work together fine - but that has not been tested.  I made the Jomolhari font on my own time and at my own expense and can't afford to update to the latest versions of CS to do the testing. However both these fonts have been successfully used in Bhutan for over three years by all the  Dzongkha newspapers and publishers - as well as by publishers of classical Tibetan religious texts - and they have not reported any problems to me. If you do have problems with particular combinations, let me know and I will try to fix them, when I have time.

     

     

    I suspect any "regression" you see between CS4 and CS5 may be because CS5 is no longer applying the features and lookups under the default "DFLT" script tag but, using WRC, is trying to apply the features and lookups under theTibetan "tibt" script tag but some of these features may not yet be fully supported by Adobe's CoolType rendering engine. 

     

     

    Concerning the support for "precomposed Tibetan" in these fonts. First, it should in no way interfere with them being used as regular Unicode fonts. The support is there to enable the fonts to be used in some applications used in China which support this encoding, but have no support for complex script rendering. It also enables the use of these fonts in applications like the Corel Draw suite which "support Unicode" - but have no support for complex script rendering of Tibetan text. This also applies to some versions of PhotoShop. Of course if you have need to use this encoding you need a way of converting from standard Unicode to pre-composed Tibetan. Andrew West's BabelPad, a free Unicode text editor, enables this.

     

    Using the BhoView application, the DDC Uchen and Jomolhari fonts can also be used on Android, which currently has no support for Tibetan rendering. This application converts between standard Unicode and the precomposed Tibetan encoding on-the-fly using Java to display Tibetan text correctly.  There are also some Android phones, available in China using the DDC Uchen font which have the whole interface and applications translated into Tibetan and use a similar method of converting between standard Unicode and pre-composed Tibetan.

     

    - Chris Fynn

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2012 4:32 AM   in reply to d_sangmo

    Can you kindly explain me how to turn WRC on for redering Tibetan Uncode font properly in InDesign CS5? I am a Tibetan, with little knowledge about InDesign. Please give me a step by step methods. Thugje che che

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2012 4:55 AM   in reply to skaratpa

    Hello,

     

    Put the attached scripts in the install like:

     

     

     

    Then in the Window menu select Utilities, Scripts:

     

     

     

    Then you will see the Scripts window and can select for example the para composer - which is what I usually use - with a Tibetan paragraph selected:

     

     

     

    Regards,

    Chris

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2012 6:40 AM   in reply to domischl

    pleae give instructions about how to make World-Ready composer active. i am completely new to inDesign. thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2012 8:23 AM   in reply to xristyNepal4

    chris,

     

    Don't know if you intended to attach something, but attachments have been disabled for years now, so you'd need to post a link to an external site.

     

    Skarpata,

     

    I suspect that you'll find what you need at http://www.thomasphinney.com/2009/01/adobe-world-ready-composer/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2012 8:27 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    I didn't pay attention and assumed that I was sending directly to some requester

     

    A google for the information will do better than my efforts I imagine

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2012 8:33 AM   in reply to xristyNepal4

    xristyNepal4 wrote:

     

    I didn't pay attention and assumed that I was sending directly to some requester

    As the email you recieved makes note, ALL repsonses are to the forum, not to individuals, and everything you send is posted on the web.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 31, 2012 9:00 AM   in reply to Peter Spier

    Peter,

     

    Thanks for the link. However, it opens up a lot of informations. I don't know what next do I do after opening this link. I mean, do i have to copy something, install someting???

     

    Please give me a numberwise guidance. I am very new and completely lost. Thank you very much in advance.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points