![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
RTF never really worked in OOo nor LibO and there are reasons why:
http://diaryproducts.net/for/geek/microsoft_rtf_specification_nightmare
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.
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
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
Am 27.04.2012 09:13, Milos Sramek wrote:
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
Again: http://diaryproducts.net/for/geek/microsoft_rtf_specification_nightmare
The software you are using right now is a reference implementation for ODF. ODF is an ISO standard for office documents since 2006. It is the only standard which does not depend on a single vendor, which is perfectly documented, extremely stable with a feature set close to MSOffice, easy enough to implement without any legal issues.
For RTF I use to recommend the free (as in "free beer") WinWord viewer software by Microsoft or the MS WordPad which they put on all their computers.
Hi
It takes a lot of digging to find stuff like that. Also it's a bit negative and "old" so people ignore it. It's better to join in with something positive and fairly new
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/opendocument
From a quick google search i found the Pdf of the Novell complaint; in Rtf format (click on the link in note 63 to download the pdf document)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format#cite_note-63
or in html form
http://gl.scofacts.org/gl-20041115214025458.html
Perhaps GrokLaw has a note of the outcomes?
Pointing out that MS may have lost a lot of legal cases about "Anti-trust" and questionable business practices seldom sways people's minds. Bill Gates is now seen as a philanthropist due to investing in charitable concerns that generate enough profit to at least be self-sustainable. Try reading "The Emperor's New Clothes" (folktale) and "The Prince" (politic satire(?) by Machiavelli).
Personally i think the best way to turn the tanker around is to go with it but keep gently nudging. Introduce people to LibreOffice and Google-docs or whichever suits a person and their machine better. Show how it can support MS formats but is better with the better (native) format (ODF). Direct action from groups such as FSF is vital too but there needs to be a softer approach from other people at the same time to make sure the infrastructure is there as things start to change. People can't move from Rtf, DocX or even Doc until they are familiar with and comfortable with programs other than MS Office.
The original question was about converting Rtf to something else? If so this link might help
http://www.gnu.org/software/unrtf/unrtf.html
Regards from
Tom
Hi, all.
I know Microsoft's so-called "open" spec can be really bad. I only use
Microsoft stuff in some public computers, because there is no second
choice.
Thank you for all people trying to spread such ideas. However, most
people I know it is not that serious about software freedom. Many
people even do not care much about political freedom in my region.
So, let's working on such RTF bugs, also?
@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>.
Hi
Who is developing the Rtf format? Who is maintaining it and working at any problems that arise with it?
Regards from
Tom
@Tom
I'm not sure what you are asking, but this might be relevant:
In this 2010-12-09 document,
<http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179199(office.14).aspx#BKMK_Changed>
It says that the "The RTF file format is no longer enhanced to include new features and functionality. Features and functionality that are new to Word 2010 and future versions of Word are lost when they are saved in RTF. In addition, Word 2010 supports a new converter interface based on Open XML Formats."
I suppose LibreOffice and OpenOffice could make the same statement concerning features and functionality of ODF (now or in the future) that do not map to RTF.
In other, more recent statements, there is assurance that RTF 1.9.1 is stable enough for meaningful reference from International Standards even though there is no International Standard for it. There is no indication that Saving documents as RTF and opening documents in RTF format is going away any time soon.
As to the quality of RTF support in various software products, this tells us nothing. Those who maintain implementations need to be consulted about problems in their handling of the format. Bugs in the format specification are a different matter. There are Microsoft forums for some discussions on both of those concerns:
<http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Search/en-US/openspecifications?query=RTF&beta=0&ac=8> is a general search. Using "Refine search, By Source:" on the left sidebar is interesting.
- Dennis
MORE ANALYSIS
There are two different statements in the 2010-12-09 quoite, and I don't quite know why the "supports a new converter interface based on Open XML Formats" is mentioned. However, there are ways for OOXML features and functions to be passed to RTF, as I mentioned. I imagine there are or will be features and functions in OOXML (and ODF) that can't be embedded in RTF in any useful way. Also, there is a difference between enhancing the RTF format and using the RTF formats for carrying extended material that is not in RTF format.
It would obviously be better to go to an XML-based format, such as OOXML/ODF as a vehicle for interchange in the future. It seems to me that handling the OOXML features that are passed around in RTF requires the ability to faithfully accept OOXML as well [;<).
There is a 2011-03-17 statement to ISO considering RTF that assures stability and availability. The 2011-03-17 statement describes the acceptability of referencing RTF specification in International Standards even though there is no International Standard for RTF. (The same considerations apply to the use of Zip in the ODF and OOXML specifications.) RTF is referenced in the IS 29500 specification as a format that OOXML documents can link to, although IS 29500 does not include the RTF specification:
"The RTF Specification [for RTF] was last updated in 2008, and the RS Originator [Microsoft] anticipates no further updates. However, the RTF Specification will remain under maintenance and Defect Reports [an ISO technical term] will be fully considered and discussed with SC34 [the OOXML ISO maintenance body]. ...
"The RS Originator is willing to consider editorial and non-substantive modifications of the RTF Specification during an associated IS 29500 [OOXML] balloting period, but would not make change which alter normative functions in this RTF Specification."
Other text indicates that the RTF specification is freely available and covered under Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, as I have already described.
Hi
Wow! I think even just copy&pasting some chunks of this into the wikipedia page would improve that page significantly.
Mostly what i have heard before is just that MS owns the format and wont let other people develop or maintain it and also wont do the work themselves. Since no work gets done on it they can claim it's stable. A bit like a car parked in 1 spot for a few years and never taken for a spin nor topped up nor cleaned nor tires checked. By a dictionary definition yes it's stable but less and less relevant or useful (or even usable) as time marches on.
The info in this thread has not really changed my mind but it has added interesting wrinkles that i had no idea about. I think a few of us agree there is no urgent need to move away from Rtf and no urgent need to convert existing documents from Rtf to something more useful. I guess that in some ways a delay might even be a good plan in order to give ODF a chance to increase it's market share before people decide against it just because they are clueless about it.
Regards from
Tom