Re: [artworks] Ideas for new version

  • From: rickman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: artworks@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:47:56 +0100

In message <4db2baa24e.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
          Martin Wuerthner <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> 
> The problem is that "one of the text markup formats" would not do
> because there is no format that more than one application can save.
> 
> OvationPro: can only save as DDL
> Impression: can only save as DDF
> EasiWriter: can only save as RTF (or HTML)
> 
> So, ArtWorks would have to support three different formats to allow
> formatted text to be imported from the three major RISC OS word
> processors. So, we are down to the usual problem: Too many
> alternatives to implement all of them and too little value in
> implementing one of them.
> 
> Mind you, the situation is entirely different in the other direction:
> Each of the above can import DDF.    Martin

Martin

Impression happily reads and writes RTF transparently using the RTF 
loader and saver, and OvationPro reads RTF via the free !TransRTF 
applet. So RTF scores 5 out of 6:-
  OvationPro: RTF IN
  Impression: RTF IN  RTF OUT
  EasiWriter: RTF IN  RTF OUT

If Artworks supported RTF it would have near interoperability with the 
three major RISC OS word processors and in addition most of the word 
processors on the Windows platform including MSWord .

(It only needs to support the sub-set of RTF which matches the 
functions of the ArtWorks text area object.)

john




-- 
John Rickman - writing from A9home machine
http://rickman.orpheusweb.co.uk

Other related posts: