Re: RTF vs HTML
David Vaughan writes: On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 21:51 Australia/Sydney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip . Just one example: create a document in Word and use full paragraph justification. Save the file as RTF. Now launch your favorite RTF editor (other than Word), open the RTF file created in Word, and lunch is on me if your full justified paragraphs are still full justified. Miscdas, in which city is the booking please, or will you come to Oz for lunch :-) ? David, Tel Aviv.(OK, so I can also make it Netanya or Rehovot, but NO WAY Jerusalem.) I stated only luch; transportation is on you... miscdas regards David ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: RTF vs HTML
Wolfgang M. Bereuter writes: On Montag, Jänner 6, 2003, at 04:48 Uhr, Ron wrote: I've been using the HTML prop to read/write text files and save formatted texts. Now, with 2.0 ability to handle RTF text I want to asking about the plus/minuses of using RTF over HTML. My purpose is to save formatted text to regular text files that can be read by other apps (be it a browser or text editor), as well as my own rev app. Which would you go with? [SNIP] Hello Ron, try exchange documents with regular (Win) Users. If you do sharing documents if you are working on one document like for translation or for any textoriented and multimedia production with different tools, you will see very fast the difference about handling rtf and html. In this case a strong standard is very important. Html is *not* that standard. Rtf is it much more. Thats why I think that rtf support is so important in rev. Pls have a look at the rev archive, there is a thread about html rtf text formating with rev. (f.e. Rev supports html 2.0. It does not support 4.0 or CSS...) But the rtf-format is supported from nearly any 20$ shareware wich is able to handele text... hope that helps regards Wolfgang M. Bereuter If you or your users are going to be using MS Word as the RTF editor, BEWARE! Although there is indeed and RTF standard, it is a sufficiently open standard that compatibility issues creep in. MS Word includes RTF formatting beyond what is found in your $20 shareware editors that can cause problems. Just one example: create a document in Word and use full paragraph justification. Save the file as RTF. Now launch your favorite RTF editor (other than Word), open the RTF file created in Word, and lunch is on me if your full justified paragraphs are still full justified. Many of the regular users, such as secretarys, that were mentioned need full justification for the bosses manuscripts. As I recall from some earlier tests, MC/RR doesn't support full justification. I think that even MS WordPad substitues some other formatting for full justification. For a second exercise, save that original doc as an HTML file and view it in your favorite browser. Surprise! The full justification is still there, just as in the starting MS Word document. Now continue by launching your favorite HTML editor, open that HTML doc created in Word, and it's about 70:30 that the full justification is gone. miscdas ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: RTF vs HTML
On Wednesday, Jan 8, 2003, at 21:51 Australia/Sydney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip . Just one example: create a document in Word and use full paragraph justification. Save the file as RTF. Now launch your favorite RTF editor (other than Word), open the RTF file created in Word, and lunch is on me if your full justified paragraphs are still full justified. Miscdas, in which city is the booking please, or will you come to Oz for lunch :-) ? Create RTF in Word v.X and open in either Mariner Write or Apple's TextEdit passes the miscTest. This is only in jest, as despite this result your general point is quite correct, as I know from other experience with RTF, especially with footnote formatting. regards David ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: RTF vs HTML
On Montag, Jänner 6, 2003, at 04:48 Uhr, Ron wrote: I've been using the HTML prop to read/write text files and save formatted texts. Now, with 2.0 ability to handle RTF text I want to asking about the plus/minuses of using RTF over HTML. My purpose is to save formatted text to regular text files that can be read by other apps (be it a browser or text editor), as well as my own rev app. Which would you go with? Hello Ron, try exchange documents with regular (Win) Users. Dont look at this list; here are professionals and power-user. But the next language secretary, office worker, translator, etc are not power-user. Thats not their job. Most of them believe PC=WIN=Office=Win=PC. So they usually have no idea about handling html. But usually they can save/open a word-document as an rtf-file. If you do sharing documents if you are working on one document like for translation or for any textoriented and multimedia production with different tools, you will see very fast the difference about handling rtf and html. In this case a strong standard is very important. Html is *not* that standard. Rtf is it much more. If you do exchange/sharing documents on html (ex/importing) you will be surprised what kind of document you will get finally. And how much work and money it costs to repair it at least this exhchanges. More exactly: I was surprised what I got... Thats why I think that rtf support is so important in rev. Therefore i struggled a lot for it. And now we got it in 2.0: HEUREKA! Pls have a look at the rev archive, there is a thread about html rtf text formating with rev. (f.e. Rev supports html 2.0. It does not support 4.0 or CSS...) But the rtf-format is supported from nearly any 20$ shareware wich is able to handele text... hope that helps regards Wolfgang M. Bereuter Learn easy with trainingsmaps© INTERNETTRAINER Wolfgang M. Bereuter Edelhofg. 17/11, A-1180 Wien, Austria ... http://www.internettrainer.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Tel: ++43/1/ 961 0418, Fax: ++43/1/ 479 2539 ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: RTF vs HTML
Dan, I was talking about the latest edition of Metacard (2.5, Beta), which I hope shall power Rev 2.0. Please see below an extract from the docs: snip The clipboardData property can be used to get or set the data on the clipboard directly without having to use cut/copy/paste. To set data of a particular type, use an array format: set the clipboardData[text] to some text snip Both Drag-drop and Clipboard interactivity are included and shall hopefully help us interact with other apps and the desktop/folders better. Regards Vikram = Original Message From Dan Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Vikram, In the following you mentioned clipboarddata[rtf]. I don't see any thing about clipboarddata in the docs. What is this? What does it do? Where can I get details on what it is? Thanks! Dan I can't talk of the benefits of exporting rtf as files, but if you are copy-pasting from other apps this may interest you: Copy a portion of a webpage. In the message box type: set the rtftext of fld 1 to clipboarddata[rtf] And viceversa, paste into Word after copying the rtftext of a field: set the clipboarddata[rtf] to the rtftext of fld 1 etc.. Rgds, Vikram ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RTF vs HTML
Hi I've been using the HTML prop to read/write text files and save formatted texts. Now, with 2.0 ability to handle RTF text I want to asking about the plus/minuses of using RTF over HTML. My purpose is to save formatted text to regular text files that can be read by other apps (be it a browser or text editor), as well as my own rev app. Which would you go with? Thanks Ron ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: RTF vs HTML
I can't talk of the benefits of exporting rtf as files, but if you are copy-pasting from other apps this may interest you: Copy a portion of a webpage. In the message box type: set the rtftext of fld 1 to clipboarddata[rtf] And viceversa, paste into Word after copying the rtftext of a field: set the clipboarddata[rtf] to the rtftext of fld 1 etc.. Rgds, Vikram = Original Message From Ron [EMAIL PROTECTED] = Hi I've been using the HTML prop to read/write text files and save formatted texts. Now, with 2.0 ability to handle RTF text I want to asking about the plus/minuses of using RTF over HTML. My purpose is to save formatted text to regular text files that can be read by other apps (be it a browser or text editor), as well as my own rev app. Which would you go with? Thanks Ron ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: RTF vs HTML
Vikram, In the following you mentioned clipboarddata[rtf]. I don't see any thing about clipboarddata in the docs. What is this? What does it do? Where can I get details on what it is? Thanks! Dan I can't talk of the benefits of exporting rtf as files, but if you are copy-pasting from other apps this may interest you: Copy a portion of a webpage. In the message box type: set the rtftext of fld 1 to clipboarddata[rtf] And viceversa, paste into Word after copying the rtftext of a field: set the clipboarddata[rtf] to the rtftext of fld 1 etc.. Rgds, Vikram ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
