Dash: older Xojo doc sets removed 🤦‍♂️

Like many I use Dash to look up information in the Xojo and MBS documentation, and as a snippets manager for use with my Xojo 2018 R3.

it seems someone has taken it upon themselves to remove all evidence of any API1 related version, which have always been there, and you are now only able to download 19r3 and 20r1 docset, which as some readers know, is utterly useless for me and many others.

So the question might be, who provided the original docsets, and why would anyone take the time and effort to purposefully decide that the archive for the most widely used versions of Xojo are no longer suitable for the world at large?

What an incredibly unfriendly move … :man_facepalming:


good unlucky catch !
but I still have the old versions in my dash docsets ?

If you need to reinstall Dash on a new machine or because of hard disk failure then you better have those older doc versions backed up.

What riles me is the sheer callousness of it - you really have to actively work against the interests of users of older Xojo versions.

1 Like

Well, good news: Norman created Docsets for 2017r1.1, 2017r3, 2018r3, 2018r4, 2019r1 and 2019r1.1 :+1::+1::+1::+1::+1::+1:


Markus, that’s good news but not for everyone, because for those who don’t know who Norman is or how to find his docsets this doesn’t help. And of course I know the forum guidelines forbid to provide a direct link to the docsets, but that doesn’t make any sense at all. There is a solution out there for a problem that Xojo users can face and we are not allowed to provide a link here?

I don’t think the following link breaks any guideline, since I am not giving a direct link to the docsets, so here it goes. It’s a google search, check the first hit: Attempt to circumvent forum guidelines removed.


1 Like

There is only one Norman :wink:

But yes, for those who don’t know whom I’m talking about, I mean Norman Palardy.

And the forum rules and common sense have parted company a looooong time ago …


Not found…

I found it … but then I didn’t just click on the first link but checked the link before clicking.

After all, the Internet is a DYNAMIC place … :roll_eyes:

IMO, this is incorrect, the link I posted was not pointing to a site of the type mentioned in the guidelines, so it it should be allowed.

I have to admit it’s partially my fault because from the text I wrote it looked like I was trying to provide a link to a site that is not allowed, but that is not the case. It was a link to another forum, where a solution to the issue presented here has been given. I would like to know which forum rule that violates exactly, because I have gone through them all and I can’t find any that applies here.

My only intention here was to provide a means for the future readers to find the solution, since I know where it is. I don’t see how that can be considered a threat to the Xojo community or company.