@Milos, I think a more reliable resource on the actual status of RTF can be found on Wikipedia at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format>. I have no idea what format Tom Davies has in mind. As far as I know it is not RTF.
It appears that the RTF specification is quite stable. The format has a built-in provisions for future extensions to specify how a implementations that do not recognize the extension should "fall back" to an understood alternative. Although anyone could use that provision, it seems to me that some future extension will include carrying new features introduced in OOXML (ISO/IEC IS 29500) in RTF via XML-format inserts. That provision is already defined for RTF. The latest versions of the specification are quite comprehensive and are freely available. There is even sample code for processing the RTF data stream. To the best of my knowledge, RTF was not subject to any particular regulatory or legal problems. - Dennis MORE BACKGROUND AND RESOURCES In the work undertaken to satisfy regulatory requirements in the EU and the United States, there was a concerted effort to provide and maintain documentation on interfaces and formats that would provide for interoperability with Microsoft systems. That effort spanned several years. The technical-oversight body that was established to review that work has reported that the specifications are acceptable and that updating for current systems is happening in an acceptable way. RTF is not listed as one of those specifications. The RTF specifications are made available separately from these sets: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134032.aspx>. <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134034.aspx> Nevertheless, RTF is covered under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise. See the end of the list at <http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/osp/office-file-formats/default.aspx>. The Open Specification Promise itself and the span of its coverage can be found at <http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/osp/default.aspx>. (Those OpenDocument Format specification versions that Microsoft has participated in, such as ODF 1.2, are also covered.) Finally, Microsoft provides implementation notes that account for deviations and implementation-defined provisions in Microsoft's implementation of public standards. Note the documents [MS-OI29500], [MS-OODF], and [MS-OODF2], among others, in this list: <http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg134034.aspx>. -----Original Message----- From: Milos Sramek [mailto:sramek.mi...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 00:13 To: users@global.libreoffice.org Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: rtf import broken in 3.5.1? Dňa 26.04.2012 21:28, Tom Davies wrote / napísal(a): > Hi :) > What!! An "agreed" 'Open' Standard that MS never quite implemented in the > way they had promised but still managed to push as the unifying standard that > all other companies had to follow. The format they promised would have long > term support so that historical archives and such could reliably store > documents for the long-term future in much the way that books have lasted. > The one that no-one other than MS (hmm, not even MS) managed to implement > because MS never quite got around to publishing how they had messed up the > format in any particular release. The format that resulted in court actions > which MS apparently lost. The one that MS is quietly dropping support for > and not developing any further so that all existing problems remain. Dear Tom, do you have any references to those court cases? Sounds very interesting. RTF is in Slovakia one of the officialy approved standards to be used by public administration (besides pdf, odf and HTML). Of course, since MS is everywhere and everybody uses RTF. Information about those court trials would be a nice argument against RTF, the compatibility of which in LO/OO/OOO is really pain. This would show why is it so. Milos > > > Luckily we have all learned our lesson and anyway MS wouldn't try to fool us > the same way again, right? lol ;) > Regards from > Tom :) > > > > --- On Thu, 26/4/12, Andreas Säger<ville...@t-online.de> wrote: > > From: Andreas Säger<ville...@t-online.de> > Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: rtf import broken in 3.5.1? > To: users@global.libreoffice.org > Date: Thursday, 26 April, 2012, 20:06 > > RTF never really worked in OOo nor LibO and there are reasons why: > http://diaryproducts.net/for/geek/microsoft_rtf_specification_nightmare > > -- > View this message in context: > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/rtf-import-broken-in-3-5-1-tp3877445p3942245.html > Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > -- email& jabber: sramek.mi...@gmail.com -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@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+h...@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
