No but I can vouch for rtf between versions of WORD. Leo had an instance where someone was running WORD 2002 or something like that, he has only Word 97. He asked that the 2002 .doc be saved as an rtf and it opened flawlessly in his WORD 97. SOOOOO, this at least shows that MS does not break backward compatibility of rtf like they do .doc between WORD versions. Whew.
Guy Steven wrote: > I would rather keep the documents editable. > > quite often I use an existing document as a template for a new document, > especially where a 'system template' for that particular document does not > exist. > > Can anyone vouch for how well rtf files carry over word styles? I am trying > to format all my word documents with styles. As an experiment I just saved a > word document in rtf format, opened it using openoffice.org and then saved > it again under a new name in .rtf format. > I then compared the original in word, the word saved rtf file opened in oo.o > and the oo.o saved rtf file opened in word. There were enough differences in > the formating to really piss me off if I had to fix the formatting in a > hurray to prepare a new document. > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2002 12:40 p.m. >>To: CLUG >>Subject: Re: .doc vs .rtf (formerly "Re: This mornings Press") >> >> >>Every item of correspondence I produce is archived as pdf. >>Yes, I know pdf in non-editable, but why would I want to edit >>a letter I've >>already posted? >>The advantage of pdf is that I can make a web based >>archive-browser. Nearly >>every browser can display pdf. >> >>I guess this could be useful in a lawyers office, eh Nick? >>The word docs you have, are they docs you specifically do >>_not_ want to edit? >> >>Or are they more of the template category? >> >>I could use the extra pocket money converting docs and >>checking that the formatting >>is intact ... >> >>Yuri >> > > >
