Re: tlug: RTF interchange format

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Totoro" == Totoro  <riley@example.com> writes:

    >> "Actually, most people can read the Microsoft-sponsored RTF
    >> interchange format. It's a little less standard than HTML but
    >> more widely supported by word processing software."

That contains several half-truths.  (I doubt your correspondent is
sufficiently well-informed to justify labeling them lies.)  RTF is not
Microsoft-sponsored, it is a MIME standard.  Because it is a slightly
enhanced form of text/plain, if a person can't read the content with
"less", it's not RTF as defined by MIME.  It's not an "interchange
format" in a sense relevant to a mailing list or newsgroup, because
there's no such thing on the Internet AFAIK.  There are content-
encodings and content-transfer-encodings.  RTF is a content-encoding
with its own MIME type.  It is actually more standard than HTML, in
the sense that the standard doesn't change every time Marc Andreessen
`kofun shichau's.  M$'s so-called RTF format is widely supported by
toasters and other household appliances (see my previous post on
"general computing") because if household appliances aren't
M$-compatible or at least able to read burnt toast (if not burn it
themselves), they're hopelessly sunk in the toaster market.

I would be strongly tempted to start posting .dvi files in response to
jerks like that, along with a pointer to the "CTAN mirror near you,
because DVI is truly portable with viewers for every platform known to
man, and some know only to women."

    >> So, now I'm wondering what the story really is.  Does this
    >> so-called 'RTF interchange format' really represent any kind of
    >> a standard (de facto or otherwise), and, if so, how does it
    >> differ from the standard M$Word file.  And where do I get a
    >> reader that will at least allow me to decode it under Linux?

If it's REALLY RTF, Pine should read it.  But if you have to run
`strings' on it, it's not RTF, it's a Word document, and Pine should
tell you it's malformed.

RTF was originally intended to give email the fonts, face, and color
capabilities of HTML without all the other baggage.  There are a fair
number of mail readers that understand MIME RTF, I believe.  However,
most people prefer to use HTML (often in MIME multipart/alternative
format).

    Totoro> I've found it to be quite useless. M$-created RTF is not
    Totoro> compatible with that made on WP-Mac, nor can it be read
    Totoro> with StarOffice, which has a RTF filter
    Totoro> included. Personally, I agree with [Craig's?] note
    Totoro> supporting PDF. It's easily available for nearly any
    Totoro> platform around and it's free (for the reader versions,

It's faster, but otherwise identical to high-quality fax.  Yuck.  RTF
is at least editable with _any_ text editor.  But then, that exposes
my biases; about half of the non-plain-text docs I get I am expected
to edit.

    Totoro> anyhow). IMO, RTF is just another case of the ogres at M$
    Totoro> wanting to create a "standard" so they can charge for it,
    Totoro> instead of complying with the ones already in
    Totoro> existence. FWIW...

Sigh.  It's Much WORSE than That.

There IS an RTF standard in MIME.  M$ just didn't implement it (it may
be fairer to say that M$ implemented so many extensions that few
non-M$ implementations can read it, I don't know), but stole the name
anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------
TLUG Meeting: To be announced
---------------------------------------------------------------
a word from the sponsor:
TWICS - Japan's First Public-Access Internet System
www.twics.com  info@example.com  Tel:03-3351-5977  Fax:03-3353-6096