Problems on Opening RTF Files/ How to Set Input Encodings

[Juergen Fenn]

Hello,

Mac OS X 10.4.11, Intel, MS Office 2008.

I received two RTF files probably produced by some earlier version of
Winword. The source code of both files starts by "\rtf1\ansi".

Neither file can be opened properly in Word 2008 nor in OOo 2.3. German
umlauts are replaced by some other funny characters, and part of the
formatting (paragraph indent) is lost.

Fortunately, TextEdit does a better job, so I opened the files in
TextEdit for printing. Umlauts are displayed properly, most indents are
correct, while some are not...

Question: Where can I set input/output encodings in Word 2008?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Juergen.

 

[Juergen Fenn]

Question: Where can I set input/output encodings in Word 2008?

Does really nobody know about this?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Juergen.

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Jurgen:

You can't set the encoding of RTF in any version of Mac Word.

You can specify Preferences>General>Confirm Conversions on Open. If you do,
you can open the RTF as Text and change the encoding statement if it is
wrong or missing.

Cheers

Does really nobody know about this?


Regards,
Juergen.

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Juergen Fenn]

You can't set the encoding of RTF in any version of Mac Word.

You can specify Preferences>General>Confirm Conversions on Open. If you do,
you can open the RTF as Text and change the encoding statement if it is
wrong or missing.

Thanks for answering, John.

I've tried it out, but unfortunately it doesn't change anything about
the result when opening these files, neither as far as encoding is
concerned nor with regard to formatting.

Seems to be another example of Word being unable to open it's own
files... :-(

Regards,
Jürgen.

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Jurgen:

Changing that setting won't make any difference at all YOU have to
change the RTF if you want it to work

You open the RTF as "Text", change the Language and character-set
statements, then save the text version, and re-open as RTF.

When you open RTF as Text, you will see:
{\rtf1\adeflang1025\ansi\ansicpg10000\uc1\adeff0\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0
\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033\themelang3081\themelangfe0\th
emelangcs0{\upr{\fonttbl{\f0\fbidi \fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose
02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fbidi
\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}

If you are using an ANSI character set, you must specify the code page: e.g.
ansicpg10000, and the Panose font-matching statement panose
02020603050405020304 etc.

If you just want to have a whinge about Microsoft, we can suggest a long
list of valid targets you can aim at. But this one works properly: if your
code is bad, you'll get a bad result

It is worth mentioning that RTF is an extensible language. Each writing
application is responsible for encoding into the document all the
information it is capable of producing. Each reading application is
responsible for interpreting as much of that code as it can, and ignoring
the rest.

It is entirely possible (indeed: "expected") that some applications will
write code into an RTF file that other applications either can't interpret,
or interpret wrongly. That's the way RTF works. The display will be
correct in the application that wrote the RTF, and in anything capable of a
later RTF level.

Hope this helps

Thanks for answering, John.

I've tried it out, but unfortunately it doesn't change anything about
the result when opening these files, neither as far as encoding is
concerned nor with regard to formatting.

Seems to be another example of Word being unable to open it's own
files... :-(

Regards,
Jürgen.

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Juergen Fenn]

You open the RTF as "Text", change the Language and character-set
statements, then save the text version, and re-open as RTF.

When you open RTF as Text, you will see:
{\rtf1\adeflang1025\ansi\ansicpg10000\uc1\adeff0\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0
\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033\themelang3081\themelangfe0\th
emelangcs0{\upr{\fonttbl{\f0\fbidi \fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose
02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fbidi
\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}

If you are using an ANSI character set, you must specify the code page:e.g.
ansicpg10000, and the Panose font-matching statement panose
02020603050405020304 etc.

Thanks, again, John. I tried this, but it doesn't change a thing,
either... :-(

However, I have meanwhile contacted another user who also received these
files, and he is unable to open them correctly, too, in Winword.

So I leave it with TextEdit which works mostly.

If you just want to have a whinge about Microsoft, we can suggest a long
list of valid targets you can aim at. But this one works properly: if your
code is bad, you'll get a bad result

Well, of course, we are entre nous in this newsgroup, so no one will
know if I whinge MS. ;-) Microsoft has done such a bad job in its Office
2008 suite anyway that you think at first you have encountered another
one of these bugs...

It is worth mentioning that RTF is an extensible language. Each writing
application is responsible for encoding into the document all the
information it is capable of producing. Each reading application is
responsible for interpreting as much of that code as it can, and ignoring
the rest.

It is entirely possible (indeed: "expected") that some applications will
write code into an RTF file that other applications either can't interpret,
or interpret wrongly. That's the way RTF works. The display will be
correct in the application that wrote the RTF, and in anything capable of a
later RTF level.

What's more, I understand that Microsoft has never kept to its own RTF
specifications, making it even harder to implement export/import filters
for other developers. Microsoft's reluctance to adopt the ODF format has
further complicated document exchange...

Regards,
Jürgen.

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Jurgen:

Thanks, again, John. I tried this, but it doesn't change a thing,
either... :-(

Sorry: I should have cautioned you that the code I offered as an example
came from the Qantas reservation system, and probably has little application
to any document you may have on your Mac

Well, of course, we are entre nous in this newsgroup, so no one will
know if I whinge MS. ;-) Microsoft has done such a bad job in its Office
2008 suite anyway that you think at first you have encountered another
one of these bugs...

Ah, yeah, there is that

What's more, I understand that Microsoft has never kept to its own RTF
specifications, making it even harder to implement export/import filters
for other developers. Microsoft's reluctance to adopt the ODF format has
further complicated document exchange...

Not "exactly" true Microsoft adheres to its RTF specifications exactly,
however, they update it constantly: every new version of a Microsoft
application adds at least 'some' widgets that requires an extension to the
RTF standard.

With RTF, you have to code your application to rigidly follow the rule "Use
it if you understand it, leave it un-touched if you don't."

I understand that a lot of people simply pinch the RTF Reader and Writer
source MS publishes with MSDN -- it works

Microsoft's reluctance to "enable" the ODF format is actually a bit of a
myth. You can add ODF to Office 2007 applications quite easily if you know
what you are doing.

Office 2008 has not got the XML Structure View that would enable you to do
this in Mac Word.

However, first you have to deal with the fact that ODF is a fairly
simplistic format that will not actually describe the content of a Microsoft
Office document. So you need to educate your users that if they insist on
saving to ODF, they may/will lose chunks of content (depending on what they
put in their document).

Much of what you "hear" about this is whining from the Open-Source
Comentariat, who have a very hidden agenda: Getting any form of XML
Transform working properly is a substantial bit of coding. You have to know
a lot, and do a lot of work, to get it right.

The open-source crowd were hoping that Microsoft would do the work FOR them,
so they could then suck it into their application and offer "Full
compatibility with Microsoft Office, just download this file."

Yeah. Right... Competition is a great thing. But the way it is supposed
to work is that the other companies are supposed to go out there and write
an application that works "better" than the Microsoft one They are
supposed to do the work themselves, not sit there whining that Microsoft
won't write it for them

On the other hand, if they actually get started, and spend more time coding
than they do whining about Microsoft, Office 2008 is a pretty low bar --
they should be able to knock it off without too much effort.

If they wait until Office 2008 matches Office 2007, well the bar will be a
lot higher

Cheers

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Phillip Jones]

John McGhie wrote:
-------------------------snip-------------------------

Much of what you "hear" about this is whining from the Open-Source
Comentariat, who have a very hidden agenda: Getting any form of XML
Transform working properly is a substantial bit of coding. You have
to know a lot, and do a lot of work, to get it right.

The open-source crowd were hoping that Microsoft would do the work
FOR them, so they could then suck it into their application and offer
"Full compatibility with Microsoft Office, just download this file."



Yeah. Right... Competition is a great thing. But the way it is
supposed to work is that the other companies are supposed to go out
there and write an application that works "better" than the Microsoft
one They are supposed to do the work themselves, not sit there
whining that Microsoft won't write it for them

How can open Source compete with Microsoft come on get real. Open source
community depends upon basically donations to survive. a Microsoft has
so much money it could literally take over and fund the US Treasury for
years to come. How there any fairness in that. Fairness is the furthest
thing from MS's mind. Its power and empowerment they want.

There hasn't been a Fair bone in MS body since it came in to existence.

On the other hand, if they actually get started, and spend more time
coding than they do whining about Microsoft, Office 2008 is a pretty
low bar -- they should be able to knock it off without too much
effort.

Furthermore - Ms version of ODF is proprietary. They don't want anyone
else to be able to provide it.

IF they were they would have used a Standard non proprietary version.

If they wait until Office 2008 matches Office 2007, well the bar will
be a lot higher.

No argument on this point. But when the playing field ain't level to
begin with, how are they supposed to even catch up.

Apple may not be a paragon of virtue either. But, MS makes Apple look
like a Saint.

Cheers

Cheers to you too.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Phillip:

Where DO you get this stuff from?? I'd leave the drugs alone, if I were
you, you're showing signs of a Reality Distortion Field

How there any fairness in that. Fairness is the furthest
thing from MS's mind. Its power and empowerment they want.

Phillip, in case the point has escaped you, may I gently point out that both
Apple and Microsoft are publicly-listed American corporations. Their boards
of directors are required to 'maximise their profits'. They would be sent
to jail if they did not do this.

There hasn't been a Fair bone in MS body since it came in to existence.

This is not a game of cricket: this is 'business'. Microsoft has a job to
do: it has to win. Any way that's legal.

There are a bunch of people out there making software and giving it away for
free. I am sure they get lots of warm fuzzies from that. But it does not
fund a development budget.

If they want to compete, that's fine. But expecting their competitors to
lie down and die without a battle is childish.

Furthermore - Ms version of ODF is proprietary. They don't want anyone
else to be able to provide it.

Phillip, have you actually read the Microsoft OOXML standard? It's an ECMA
standard, published for free on the World Wide Web. Here you are: download
it yourself:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm

IF they were they would have used a Standard non proprietary version.

Ummm... They submitted it for acceptance as a standard. They published the
thing on the web! Whaddaya want? They should sent it to everyone in the
world in the post? I don't think it's POSSIBLE to be less proprietary than
publishing the thing on the Web!

They would have used ODF if it had been capable of doing the job. It isn't.
It lacks the strength to describe a Microsoft Office Document.

And I think you're maybe missing the whole "point" of XML. The 'X' in XML
stands for "extensible". The whole point is that a user can add stuff to it
to describe whatever they need. That's why the standard was invented.

No argument on this point. But when the playing field ain't level to
begin with, how are they supposed to even catch up.

Exactly the same way Microsoft did. You seem to 'forget' that when
Microsoft started, it was two guys in a University dormitory. There was
this massive behemoth named "International Business Machine Corporation"
(IBM, to you and I...) that was determined to laugh Microsoft out of town.

Business is a contact sort, Phillip. People get hurt. The strong survive.
Apple very nearly didn't. Nobody has ever accused Steve Jobs of being
over-endowed with tact and charm. But he survived, and he is still paying a
lot of wages, and filling up a lot of pension funds.

Microsoft can be beaten. By better products at cheaper prices. Not by
whining that the competition won't help you: it never has, and it never will


Cheers

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Phillip Jones]

Read this:

http://news.zdnet.com/2424-3515_22-194774.html?tag=nl.e550

some what proves my point. Rather than Microsoft fixing the problems
with the OOXLM Standard to comply to world standards. It seems MS is
going on a campaign of twist arms and bending legs to have the world
settle on *their* Standards. similar article on cNet news.

You can believe the line MS gives you or not.

This article has nothing to do with Apple but with MS and its practices.

Its noted there was 17 MS employees there to Shepard the standards through.

As for making money now if they were play nicer it would cost the BOD's
perhaps 50 cent at the end of the Day.

Sure its the object for companies to Make Profit for themselves, and
the BOD's but there is a difference between making a decent profit for
everyone. And quite another to make obscene amounts of profit just to
put other out business.

as *Wall Street's Gorden Gekko" played by Michael Douglas says. *Greed
is a Good thing*. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gekko

Hi Phillip:

Where DO you get this stuff from?? I'd leave the drugs alone, if I were
you, you're showing signs of a Reality Distortion Field



Phillip, in case the point has escaped you, may I gently point out that both
Apple and Microsoft are publicly-listed American corporations. Their boards
of directors are required to 'maximise their profits'. They would be sent
to jail if they did not do this.


This is not a game of cricket: this is 'business'. Microsoft has a job to
do: it has to win. Any way that's legal.

There are a bunch of people out there making software and giving it away for
free. I am sure they get lots of warm fuzzies from that. But it does not
fund a development budget.

If they want to compete, that's fine. But expecting their competitors to
lie down and die without a battle is childish.


Phillip, have you actually read the Microsoft OOXML standard? It's an ECMA
standard, published for free on the World Wide Web. Here you are: download
it yourself:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm


Ummm... They submitted it for acceptance as a standard. They published the
thing on the web! Whaddaya want? They should sent it to everyone in the
world in the post? I don't think it's POSSIBLE to be less proprietary than
publishing the thing on the Web!

They would have used ODF if it had been capable of doing the job. It isn't.
It lacks the strength to describe a Microsoft Office Document.

And I think you're maybe missing the whole "point" of XML. The 'X' in XML
stands for "extensible". The whole point is that a user can add stuff to it
to describe whatever they need. That's why the standard was invented.


Exactly the same way Microsoft did. You seem to 'forget' that when
Microsoft started, it was two guys in a University dormitory. There was
this massive behemoth named "International Business Machine Corporation"
(IBM, to you and I...) that was determined to laugh Microsoft out of town.

Business is a contact sort, Phillip. People get hurt. The strong survive.
Apple very nearly didn't. Nobody has ever accused Steve Jobs of being
over-endowed with tact and charm. But he survived, and he is still paying a
lot of wages, and filling up a lot of pension funds.

Microsoft can be beaten. By better products at cheaper prices. Not by
whining that the competition won't help you: it never has, and it never will


Cheers

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[Phillip Jones]

Also read this:

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3742

Read this:

http://news.zdnet.com/2424-3515_22-194774.html?tag=nl.e550

some what proves my point. Rather than Microsoft fixing the problems
with the OOXLM Standard to comply to world standards. It seems MS is
going on a campaign of twist arms and bending legs to have the world
settle on *their* Standards. similar article on cNet news.

You can believe the line MS gives you or not.

This article has nothing to do with Apple but with MS and its practices.

Its noted there was 17 MS employees there to Shepard the standards through.

As for making money now if they were play nicer it would cost the BOD's
perhaps 50 cent at the end of the Day.

Sure its the object for companies to Make Profit for themselves, and
the BOD's but there is a difference between making a decent profit for
everyone. And quite another to make obscene amounts of profit just to
put other out business.

as *Wall Street's Gorden Gekko" played by Michael Douglas says. *Greed
is a Good thing*. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gekko

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[John McGhie]

Phillip:

I HAVE read all that stuff. You seem to be missing a couple of small but
really, very important, points...

1) Microsoft's OOXML complies EXACTLY with the W3C World XML standard.

2) The XML standard says "you can put anything you like in there, provided
you code it right." It's a coding language, Phillip. It specifies how the
code must be written; it makes no comment at all about what you might want
to write ABOUT.

3) The "World Standard" for encoding a "Microsoft" document, can only be
written by "Microsoft", wouldn't you think? Perhaps you are wanting IBM to
write the file format specification for Microsoft? How likely do you think
that would be?

Please try and understand this, old heart. You're making an awful spectacle
of yourself XML is a "language". You can use it to say "anything you
like".

OOXML is perfectly valid, well-formed XML.

ODF is also XML. Also perfectly valid. But it's a cut-down and simplified
vocabulary, intended for describing simple "lowest common-denominator"
documents. It doesn't have the power to describe complex documents. They
could add that, but then they would crash all their simple ODF applications,
so better not...

Sling off at Microsoft, by all means. But when you're accusing THEM of
doing the wrong thing, make sure that you are NOT doing that also

Cheers

Read this:

http://news.zdnet.com/2424-3515_22-194774.html?tag=nl.e550

some what proves my point. Rather than Microsoft fixing the problems
with the OOXLM Standard to comply to world standards. It seems MS is
going on a campaign of twist arms and bending legs to have the world
settle on *their* Standards. similar article on cNet news.

You can believe the line MS gives you or not.

This article has nothing to do with Apple but with MS and its practices.

Its noted there was 17 MS employees there to Shepard the standards through.

As for making money now if they were play nicer it would cost the BOD's
perhaps 50 cent at the end of the Day.

Sure its the object for companies to Make Profit for themselves, and
the BOD's but there is a difference between making a decent profit for
everyone. And quite another to make obscene amounts of profit just to
put other out business.

as *Wall Street's Gorden Gekko" played by Michael Douglas says. *Greed
is a Good thing*. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Gekko

--
Don't wait for your answer, click here: http://www.word.mvps.org/

Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Phillip Jones]

Phillip:

I HAVE read all that stuff. You seem to be missing a couple of small but
really, very important, points...

1) Microsoft's OOXML complies EXACTLY with the W3C World XML standard.

2) The XML standard says "you can put anything you like in there, provided
you code it right." It's a coding language, Phillip. It specifies how the
code must be written; it makes no comment at all about what you might want
to write ABOUT.

3) The "World Standard" for encoding a "Microsoft" document, can only be
written by "Microsoft", wouldn't you think? Perhaps you are wanting IBM to
write the file format specification for Microsoft? How likely do you think
that would be?

Please try and understand this, old heart. You're making an awful spectacle
of yourself XML is a "language". You can use it to say "anything you
like".

OOXML is perfectly valid, well-formed XML.

ODF is also XML. Also perfectly valid. But it's a cut-down and simplified
vocabulary, intended for describing simple "lowest common-denominator"
documents. It doesn't have the power to describe complex documents. They
could add that, but then they would crash all their simple ODF applications,
so better not...

Sling off at Microsoft, by all means. But when you're accusing THEM of
doing the wrong thing, make sure that you are NOT doing that also

Cheers

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3745

I'm not the one doing the accusing1 ;-)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>