On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:31:04 +0800, Bob Williams wrote:
> I have my doubts about whatever "RTF" Word produces....I can do things in
> there that I don't think are legally RTF. And, whereas Word warns you
> about possible loss of formatting when you go to, say, HTML from DOC it
> doesn't do so going to RTF.
> It may be that they are using a more recent RTF - I think there is RTF 1
> and 2 - but I suspect (without having checked), that it is just more of
> the same "improving" on standards.
It's RTF extensions described by Microsoft in a file available only from
them. It, too, is an "open" "standard". The file is Win32 system
compressed and in the format described therein. I kid you not.
> Like many, I have found RTF to be a fairly good format for transferring
> files across platforms.
Please don't send RTF to this platform. It can't be read. Same for
PostScript and PDF, Adobe's claims to the EXACT opposite
notwithstanding.
> It's a bit richer than HTML (since it is intended
> to be a text formatting language rather than just a presentation language
> like HTML), and yet still a standard. Now if we could convince people not
> to muck it up with proprietary "improvements."
The stated purpose of RTF is to provide a format that can be produced by
other's applications, yet read by Word. Microsoft has turned the
"standard" over to an "independent committee". The "standard" approved
by them states that RTF is whatever Microsoft says it is. ("From time to
time"... ..."amended as may be required by application evolution"...
,usw). This "independent" committee's charter also states that it will
turn the "specification standardization" process back over to Microsoft
"should such be deemed (doesn't say by whom) prudent."
RTF is not a standard. It is a specification. No standardization body
has accepted it. It is an "open" specification only in that Microsoft is
alllowing others to use it for now; this is entirely for Microsoft's
benefit.
The reason for the extensions is that Office 97 could not properly read
and write RTF to the existing specification due to naming and process
conflicts with other parts of the application. The extensions are now
referred to as part of the specification wherever the rest of the
specification is published (in RTF, of course). As I said: It's whatever
Microsoft says it is.
There's nothing wrong with publishing a format that is intended for your
own products in order to persuade others to use it. Adobe does *exactly*
the same with PostScript and PDF. This does not mean we have to take
them up on it.
> Does anyone have an URL for a good introduction to hand-coding RTF just
> like there are for HTML? A brief summary of legal codes, etc...
Brief guide to RTF is an oxy-moron.
> I'm also on the lookout for a compact Linux command line editor that
> produces RTF and uses shortcut keys like Wordstar.
Compact and produces RTF are mutually exclusive.
In case you missed it, I don't approve of RTF at all.
No reflection on you, Bob. I usually find your posts entertaining or
informative or both. You must be an intelligent, perceptive person even
if you do spell your name backwards ;).
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
