Re: [libreoffice-users] BUG: Writer seems to ignore some "\par" inRTF file

Hi :)
Ok, i googled it and found a few interesting ideas for Rtf - Html.  There seems to be a few 
freeware tools but i tend to distrust freeware and then there were some guides on how to write your 
own and some with just coding in C# and stuff.  Oddly i didn't look through our own Extensions site 
but there is bound to be something there and if not then perhaps one of these links would be 
helpful getting something up there 


http://stackoverflow.com/questions/439301/convert-rtf-to-html

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/matt/archive/2009/09/28/converting-rtf-to-html.aspx
http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsdesktop/Converting-between-RTF-and-aaa02a6e
Regards from
Tom :)  





> ________________________________
> From: Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "robert@prino.org" <robert@prino.org>; Virgil Arrington <cuyfalls@hotmail.com> 
> Cc: "users@global.libreoffice.org" <users@global.libreoffice.org> 
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:49
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] BUG: Writer seems to ignore some "\par" inRTF file
>
>
> Hi :)
> Could the output be piped through something to convert to html?  Would it be difficult to 
> construct?  Is anyone here able to do something simple or is it likely to be horribly complex?
> Regards from 
> Tom :)  
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ________________________________
> > From: Robert Prins <robert@prino.org>
> > To: Virgil Arrington <cuyfalls@hotmail.com> 
> > Cc: Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>; users@global.libreoffice.org 
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:15
> > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] BUG: Writer seems to ignore some "\par" inRTF file
> >
> > Virgil,
> >
> > On 15 March 2013 12:46, Virgil Arrington <cuyfalls@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Interesting discussion. For years, I have been an RTF fan for the very
> > > reasons mentioned by Robert. A small word processor I use a lot, called
> > > Atlantis, uses RTF as its native format. I also found that nearly every word
> > > processor on the planet is able to read RTF files.
> > >
> > > But, as Robert found and Tom has explained, I found that every word
> > > processor reads those RTF files differently. It seems that
 there are so many
> > > different ways to format an RTF file that it's difficult to find consistency
> > > among the various programs.
> > >
> > > So, as Tom points out, the format never became what it could have. It's a
> > > rotten shame.
> > >
> > > In terms of file sizes, I think a lot depends on how much information the
> > > program inserts into the various files. I wrote a 44 page paper in LO. In
> > > ODT format, the file is 57 KB. When I imported the file into Atlantis and
> > > saved it in RTF format, it ballooned to 135 KB. Again, I think this is
> > > because of the different ways different programs deal with RTF.
> >
> > No, that's because ODT files are in essence ZIP files. The RTF files
> > we create on z/OS are specially crafted (someone had too much time on
> > his hands) to leave out everything and anything that isn't strictly
> > required.
> >
> > Take the aforementioned 2,887kb RTF file created on z/OS:
> >
> > If I
 save this in Word, (as RTF) without doing anything other than a
> > "Save As", it balloons up to an astonishing 13,286kb
> > If I save this in Writer, (as RFT) same scenario, 12,226kb
> > If I save the saved-in-Word RTF in Writer things get really bad: 16,887kb
> >
> > And zipped, same order: 342kb, 612kb, 489kb & 554kb.
> >
> > Save the z/OS RTF as ODT: 563kb, but this is in essence a ZIP file,
> > the constituent files have a total size of 9,007kb
> >
> > > At any rate, I've given up hoping that RTF would be a "universal" file
> > > format, simply because there are so many different "right" ways to interpret
> > > RTF files. As much as possible now, I just stick with ODT and, if I know
> > > I'll need to load it into a different program, I'll save a plain text copy.
> > > Yes, I lose all my formatting, but I've never found any clean transfer of
> > > *any* file format between different programs. Something, somewhere, is
> > > always messed
 up, so I find it best to start with plain text and go from
> > > there if I have to go from, say, LO to Word or WordPerfect, or back again.
> >
> > Going to plain text is not an option when your files are created on
> > another platform in huge volumes, which makes post-processing them
> > with any PC based word processor impossible.
> >
> > Simple elementary RTF (paragraphs, columns, new pages,
> > bold/italic/underline) should be formatted the same by every word
> > processor. For goodness sake, what is so difficult about correctly
> > formatting two consecutive \par tags after a \column that Writer gets
> > is knickers in a twist?
> >
> > Robert
> > -- 
> > Robert AH Prins
> > robert(a)prino(d)org
> >
> > > -----Original Message----- From: Tom Davies
> > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 6:49 AM
> > > To: robert@prino.org
> > > Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] BUG: Writer seems to ignore some "\par"
> > > inRTF file
> > >
> > > Hi :)
> > > If it's just text then why not use the txt format?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure why your Odts are ending up so large.  Typically around 20-50Kb
> > > seems fairly normal for just a couple of pages.
> > >
> > > I feel i should apologise that MS never made the Rtf format OpenSource
> > > rather than proprietary and hid the format's specs so that other programs
> > > couldn't use it until years after each new release of it and then withdrew
> > > development of it after they lost their court case but MS is a 3rd party
> > > organisation and we have no control over what they do.
> > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Robert Prins <robert@prino.org>
> > > > To: Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
> > > > Cc: "users@global.libreoffice.org" <users@global.libreoffice.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 10:31
> > > > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] BUG: Writer seems to ignore some "\par"
> > > > in RTF file
> > > >
> > > > Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On 15 March 2013 09:09, Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > The Odt format is a zip container that holds an Xml file(s).  So my
 guess
> > > > > is
> > > > > that if you can generate Xml in text-files then it should be reasonably
> > > > > easy.
> > > >
> > > > You've got to be kidding...
> > > >
> > > > Take this line from a file (in fixed pitch font):
> > > > === SOURCE ===
> > > > |   72 | 1386 |   43 |   26 |  112 |   14 | FL  RG  P   CH  D   GB  LV
> > > > NL  B   S   |
> > > > === SOURCE ===
> > > >
> > > > In RTF it's simple:
> > > > === RTF ===
> > > > |   72 | 1386 |   43 |   26 |  112 |   14 | FL  RG  P   CH  D   GB  LV
> > > > NL  B   S   |\par
> > > > === RTF ===
> > > >
> > > > And in ODT?
> > > >
> > > > === ODT ===
> > > > <text:p text:style-name="P1"><text:span text:style-name="T1">| <text:s
 text:c="2"/>72 | 1386 | <text:s text:c="2"/>43 | <text:s
> > > > text:c="2"/>26 | <text:s/>112 | <text:s text:c="2"/>14 | FL
> > > > <text:s/>RG <text:s/>P <text:s text:c="2"/>CH <text:s/>D <text:s
> > > > text:c="2"/>GB <text:s/>LV <text:s/>NL <text:s/>B <text:s
> > > > text:c="2"/>S <text:s text:c="2"/>|</text:span></text:p>
> > > > === ODT ===
> > > >
> > > > Care to explain why Writer breaks up this line in umpteen parts, and
> > > > seems to do so on all places where there are two of more spaces? What
> > > > is wrong with spaces in XML? Why, so it seems to me, replace 2 spaces
> > > > with a *20* character substitute of "<text:s text:c="2"/>"?
> > > >
> > > > Also, in this case the RTF file is just 325kb. The "content.xml" is
> > > > 1,152kb.
> > > >
> > > > Another RTF file is
 2,887kb. For this one the "content.xml" is
> > > > "merely" 8,961kb, and even stranger: Open the RTF-saved-as-ODT, add
> > > > and insert and delete a single space at the very beginning, and save
> > > > again, and now "content.xml" is suddenly reduced to 7,056kb. Why
> > > > wasn't is saved like that right from the start?
> > > >
> > > > RTF may have drawbacks, but for simple text it's vastly easier to
> > > > generate than the XML used in Writer. Add the fact that CPU time on
> > > > z/OS is rather more expensive than on Windoze boxes, and the case
> > > > against generating ODT files on z/OS is pretty strong... I'll probably
> > > > file the problem as a bug, but I won't hold my breath for the
> > > > solution.
> > > >
> > > > Robert
> > > > --
> > > > Robert AH Prins
> > > > robert(a)prino(d)org
> > > >
> > > > > But as you point out it does generate fairly different results
 on
> > > > > different
> > > > > machines using different OSes or / and different programs.  Then when
> > > > > generated you have no idea how it will display on other different
> > > > > machines,
> > > > > different OSes or in different programs.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are free to post it as a bug-report but it's an inherent problem with
> > > > > the format itself and one that MS never fixed.  Remember that this mess
> > > > > of a
> > > > > format and the vast waste of effort endure by quite a lot of people and
> > > > > companies did land MS in court and MS lost the case.  Some companies seem
> > > > > to
> > > > > have been put out of business by it's failures to be more
> > > > > cross-compatible.
> > > > > So, you are not alone.
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: Robert Prins <robert@prino.org>
> > > > > To: Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>
> > > > > Cc: "users@global.libreoffice.org" <users@global.libreoffice.org>
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 7:04
> > > > > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] BUG: Writer seems to ignore some "\par"
> > > > > in
> > > > > RTF file
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe...
> > > > >
> > > > > But RTF has one huge advantage, it's very easy to create on other
> > > > > systems, as it is pure text. The "file" I posted is generate on
 IBM's
> > > > > z/OS. Maybe you can tell me how I can generate an ODT file on that
> > > > > platform?
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert
> > > > > --
> > > > > Robert AH Prins
> > > > > robert(a)prino(d)org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 15 March 2013 00:11, Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi :)
> > > > > > MS developed Rtf making all the promises about cross-platform and
> > > > > > cross-product compatibility that are currently being made for their ISO
> > > > > > format.  Unfortunately they never quite lived up to those promises and
> > > > > > got
> > > > > > taken to court about it and lost the case.  So they stopped developing
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > and created the OOXML and got that
 registered as an ISO standard
> > > > > > instead.
> > > > > > Now people seem to be having similar problems with the new OOXML formats
> > > > > > that they had with the Rtf, perhaps even more problems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, just avoid Rtf.  It always was a broken, proprietary format and even
> > > > > > though MS have stopped doing any development of it there still hasn't
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > any improvement in it's compatibility.
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: prino <robert@prino.org>
> > > > > > To: users@global.libreoffice.org
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 21:47
> > > > > > Subject: [libreoffice-users] BUG:
 Writer seems to ignore some "\par" in
> > > > > > RTF
> > > > > > file
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you open the following, name it "whatever.rtf"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > === CUT ===
> > > > > > {\rtf1\ansi\deff0
> > > > > > {\fonttbl
> > > > > > {\f0\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1 Courier New;}}
> > > > > > \paperw16840\paperh11907\margl709\margr709\margt1418\margb567
> > > > > > \lndscpsxn
> > > > > > \cols2\colsx709
> > > > > > \pard\plain
> > > > > > \sl-140\slmult0\fs14
> > > > > > {\b Rows\par}{
> > > > > > \par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > | Row  |\par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > |    1 |\par
> > > > > > |  60 |\par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > \column
> > > > > > \par
> > > > > > \par
 +------+\par
> > > > > > | Row  |\par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > |  61 |\par
> > > > > > |  120 |\par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > \column
> > > > > > \par
> > > > > > \par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > | Row  |\par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > |  121 |\par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > | Tot  |\par
> > > > > > +------+\par
> > > > > > }}
> > > > > > === CUT ===
> > > > > >
> > > > > > in Word, it will correctly put two blank lines above the second and
> > > > > > third
> > > > > > column. Open it in Writer (4.0.1.2) and there will be only *one* blank
> > > > > > line
> > > > > > above columns two and three.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not good!
> >
> > -- 
> > For unsubscribe instructions
 e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
> > Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
> > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted