Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
Interesting lack of links to any documentation there.

Also i still think that most people are going to find full words and widely
used abbreviations MUCH easier to read than clever 1-4 letter abbreviations
that are pretty much unique to the context.  We are obviously going to
carry on disagreeing on that.

With the Rtf file it was almost impossible to spot where&what the actual
contents was.  With Xml the coding tags are clearly defined and limited.
It's much easier to extract the actual words-on-the-page - even for a human
without the benefit of so much as a simple text-editor's colour-coding.

Also ODF 1.0/1.1 has been an established ISO format since 2006.  Tons of
programs are able to implement it as per that ISO specification and set
that as a default.

Rtf never quite got that far.  Almost all of it's implementations are quite
different from each other.  It's never been much of a "standard".  You can
grumble that it's everyone else's fault as much as you like but that
doesn't improve the implementation in anything.  You never quite know what
to expect when opening an Rtf in any program other than whatever it was
written with.
Regards from
Tom :)

On 20 November 2014 09:57, Urmas <> wrote:

"Cley Faye":

So, somehow arbitrary BASE64-encoded data are fine in ODF yet an obstacle
in RTF?

It is not documented there: it says it can be an arbitrary string with no
effect defined.


\cfN    Foreground color (default is 0). N specifies the color as an index
of the color table.
\kerningN    Point size (in half-points) above which to kern character
pairs. \kerning0 turns off kerning.
\dbch    The text consists of double-byte characters.

 RTF was changed on numerous occasion in non-retrocompatible ways,


 accross several MS tools (namely MS Word and Wordpad) you get
completely different results for the same file

Different features supported give different results. Yet Arial 10pt red
will stay Arial 10pt red everywhere, so the format definitely works.

 A RTF file is less "human-readable" than the content.xml file in an ODT

XML isn't more readable than RTF.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.