home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- >As far as I can tell the richtext in RFC1143 is kind of a quick
- >and dirty hack. I had no experience with the microsoft standard
- >so of course I cant compare it but the rfc1143 richtext looks
- >like a step backwards from html even.
- >
- In what way? This is exactly the point of my message: that HTML
- is nothing more than rtf1143 RichText plus anchors. I'd like
- to hear the flip side of the argument.
-
- >is there an online definition of RTF?
-
- I have an old (and in my opinion, poorly written) RTF
- spec from a Microsoft programming journal. There's another
- thing often called Rich_Text_Format_Specs.hqx (see archie
- for FTP site nearest you), but it has at least one
- inaccuracy (regarding newlines) and I don't know where it came from.
-
- The best work I've seen on RTF is:
-