> 1.) Actually export in MS Word format, so as not to confuse applications that > rely entirely on extention or
Patches certainly welcome. OpenOffice has a team that's been working on this for over 3 years now and still hasn't gotten it 100% correct > 2.) When saving as a .doc file, make the RTF comply with what Word does, and > when saving as a .rtf file, comply with RTF standards or We comply entirely with the RTF standards except for internal use only (cut & pasting of lists, mostly) that the outside world never sees. You're filing a bug with the wrong people here. We aren't going to give people an option to save as non-complaint RTF. > 3.) Stop pretending to have Word export capability and simply have the option > to select whether to comply with Word or with the actual RTF specs, and make > it clear in the documentation that Word can read RTF files, and they are often > smaller than a "real" Word document. We pretend to have word export because too many people complained that we didn't and couldn't get it through their skulls that RTF was compatible with MSWord, no matter how loudly we shouted and how many places we documented it. So we fake it for now, and in my opinion, do a terribly good job at it. > I would like to have perfect compatability with Word, just like when I design > a web page I want perfect compatability with Internet Explorer. But not at > the loss of complying with the standards that browsers (or word processors) > should be following anyway. I suggest that you write pages that conform to the (X)HTML, CSS 1/2, and ECMAScript specs. Hey, AOL and CompuServe are probably going to switch to mozilla's gecko in the near future - we wouldn't want your pages to look crappy for up to 40 million users now, would you? Heck, even MSIE is fairly standards complaint. Stick to the standards. Make others comply. The world will be a better place. Dom
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
