Subject: Re: RTF specs From: jeremy@xxxxxxxxx (Jeremy H. Griffith) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:23:23 GMT |
On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 21:39:23 +0100, Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx> wrote: >Thanks. So, all RTF readers will be able to import documents conforming >to this spec. Sorry, no. While RTF's design seems intended to permit this, most reader implementations (such as the MS WinHelp compiler) do not operate in a compliant manner. WordPerfect is especially nasty. Even MS Word, the "reference implementation", is inconsistent. >My initial objection - which was just a passing comment >anyway - was based on the impression that the RTF emitted by current >applications changed with new software releases - a moving target. This is true. It's also a very poorly documented moving target. The docs *look* comprehensive at first glance, but when you actually proceed to implementation of anything non-trivial, you quickly find that the "language" is badly underspecified. You need to do a lot of testing, with MS Word, to find just the right constructions. But then, it is a "standard" with no real standards group behind it, only MS... -- Jeremy H. Griffith, at Omni Systems Inc. (jeremy@xxxxxxxxx) http://www.omsys.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: RTF specs, Chris Lilley | Thread | RE: RTF specs, Didier PH Martin |
RE: About the style processing inst, Didier PH Martin | Date | Templates using XSL, parul agarwal |
Month |