Thanks, Allan, for both the replies.

I?d argue that ?name? is meta data for the ?content? with the agreed upon convention that it uses a format like ??title?[.?type?]? ? a resource fork is just another piece of content meta data which is very fragile since it won?t survive a lot of the mechanisms used to transfer content (unlike the name), so there is little reason trying to split up the name into ?title? and ?type? and then store the ?type? in a new meta data field.

I agree completely about the resource fork. I'm afraid my comment was confusing and it seemed like I longed for the days of resource forks getting lost when you transferred files across platforms. (I'd be just as happy to be rid of the extension.)

And I filed my first bug report with Apple.

Make a column selection of the desired width (and with desired indent) then hit ?Q and TM will reflow the paragraph to be ?in a box?.

Doh! I knew that and had forgotten it. I feel like such a punk now. (I'd still like to automate the process, but I want to try to do it myself.)