> I wanted to chime in on this, because I share your conclusion that OOo > does no handle RTF very well at all. My contribution is that Microsoft > Word Viewer 2003 runs very well under Wine > > I would recommend that any work done to the > RTFHandler be tested using the same software the RTF specification > author's use. ;-) > Following your recommendation would the Word Viewer 2003 really be the appropriate test software or MS Word 97 or the RTF-Reader promoted without support at the RTF-Reference MSDN site or the latest Ms-Word?
For my special purpose RTF was needed primarily for Microsoft Word Users. The OpenOffice attempt was intended to show me possible errors. I agree that OOo should be second choice for testing but it would be cool if RTF from FOP worked in OOo as well. Yours, Matthias PS: The footnote-thing is not over yet. There is a controlWord like "ftnallt" written in RTFFootnote which certainly is a typo and should be "ftnalt" which indicates "show Footnotes at the End, somehow as Endnotes" by the way... http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnrtfspec/html/RTFSpec_62.asp?frame=true http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnrtfspec/html/rtfspec_16.asp?FRAME=true#rtfspec_18 F.i. Word97 RTF footnote-numbers seem to be controlled by "\chftn Automatic footnote reference (footnotes follow in a group) & \ftnstartN Beginning footnote number (the default is 1)." which is not used by FOP-RTF. The FOP-RTF approach seems to be bound to footnote-creating in xsl-FO, which makes it hard to create a proper footnote (the footnote-body pair of (number orreference) plus text is becoming a kind of space separated paragraph in RTF, the foonotes will be not changeable therefore) Is someone working on the RTF branch to ask or coordinate? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
