[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
RE: RTF specs
Subject: RE: RTF specs From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 20:15:50 -0500 |
HI Jeremy, <YourComment> 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. </YourComment> <Reply> Yes implementations are inconsistent like browsers are with HTML and so are other implementations following standard specs. So implementations more or less follow the spec and more or less are of good quality. You picked some bad implementations but also some are good ones like Word 2000 or Ventura. So, idem as for browsers.... <YourComment> 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... </YourComment> <Reply> Yes the spec is not well written and not exhaustive. You say that word is the "reference implementation", maybe but its quality is of the same quality than the XML specs providing a XML document with a bad link to its DTD and no stylesheet attached to it. Yep, "reference implementation" are not perfect :-) controled by a group or not. I Recently found a new versions updated by ISV writers with annotations, probably these guys where frustrated with the bad writing. Nonetheless we can also say the same thing about specs coming from groups like you say :-). So, some specs are better written and intelligible than others. I agree, quality is not constant - comming from Microsoft or comming from groups ;-) </Reply> Regards Didier PH Martin mailto:martind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netfolder.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: RTF specs, Jeremy H. Griffith | Thread | Re: RTF specs, James Robertson |
Re: Fw: I need < - I get <, Tyler Baker | Date | RE: About the style processing inst, Didier PH Martin |
Month |
Keywords