Re: commit: Improvements to RTF table export.

From: Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun Sep 15 2002 - 23:06:14 EDT

  • Next message: Martin Sevior: "Re: commit: Improvements to RTF table export."

     --- Dom Lachowicz <doml@appligent.com> wrote:
    > On Fri, 2002-09-13 at 04:53, Andrew Dunbar wrote:
    >
    > > Oh don't forget to check against MW WordPad and
    > > the RTF that Mac OS X uses too. Hub can probably
    > > get you an OS X sample if you need one.
    > >
    > > Our RTF already seems to have some dependencies on
    > > either the standard or MS Word and could be more
    > > forgiving.
    >
    > In all honesty, MSWord is the de-facto standard. By
    > *far* it is the #1 producer and consumer of RTF, and
    > should be used as the guide where the spec is
    > lacking - for this reason, and for the reasons that
    > MSFT owns the spec.

    This is certainly true yet when I complain about
    problems between our RTF and Word's (list support
    which makes a mess of my resume) all I hear back is
    that we won't fix it because MS isn't sticking to the
    standard. That won't get us anywhere. RTF is an
    exchange format and, broken or not, this is the most
    important format for interoperability and at least as
    an ideal goal we should strive to read in even what
    seems to be mangled in one way or another.
    I know Word and WordPad handle each-other's RTF pretty
    much perfectly even though they're not the same.

    > The RTF that MacOSX and Cocoa produces is crap.
    > Likewise for OpenOffice.
    > However, OSX seems always able to render our RTF to
    > some reasonable degree. It isn't perfect, but I
    > imagine that is because their TextPad product
    > certainly isn't their #1 priority, and it shows.

    I know it's a pain in the arse to support this type of
    crap but that's one of the problem with standards -
    especially with file formats. There's just so much
    room to move for each implementor and they seem to be
    happy with "what mostly works for them".
    That doesn't mean we should just be happy to fail to
    import them. What other choice do we have? Tell
    people to open all broken RTF files with MS Word first
    and save it out again before loading it into AbiWord?

    > OpenOffice has
    > given up on their RTF work in favor of better DOC
    > support. This is understandable, but unfortunate, as
    > their product produces/consumes non-conformant RTF
    > 1.2 while we do pretty-darn-good RTF 1.7.

    It's a shame they've done this and it can't mean good
    things for clipboard support between our two apps for
    one example.
    I also agree that our RTF is pretty good and I'm not
    trying to cut anyone down. Just stating my opinion
    that it's better for everyone to have an open mind
    about trying our best rather than resting on our
    laurels and ending up with RTF which is compliant but
    only works with AbiWord and MS Word.

    Andrew Dunbar.

    > Dom
    >

    =====
    http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/translator.pl http://www.abisource.com

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Everything you'll ever need on one web page
    from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
    http://uk.my.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 23:09:59 EDT