From koffice-devel Fri Aug 29 12:27:42 2003 From: Nicolas Goutte Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:27:42 +0000 To: koffice-devel Subject: Re: Question about RTF import filter X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=koffice-devel&m=106216029208039 On Friday 29 August 2003 13:25, Ewald Snel wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > > Wait! You are not telling me that MS has changed the specification after > > RTF 1.5 on that point. :-( > > I have used version 1.6 (1999) to develop the import filter. > > > Good, I leave it as it, even if it is uncompatible with older RTF > > versions. (I will just add a comment so that another developer does not > > fall into the same trap.) > > It should be compatible according to the specification. The writer should > probably insert some extra keywords for compatibility with older readers > (\ul to turn on any underline for example, followed by the underline > style). The compatibility is probably hold because nobody has used something like \ulw0 . But otherwise it is a break, at least in documentation. As for adding an extra \ul, I do not think that it is a good idea. Most \ul variants are known since RTF 1.2, except the waves and dashes (not even in RTF 1.5). However adding \ul is a risk, as surely some buggy readers will probably not like contradicting underlines one after another (without text between.) > > > Before I make another mistake, do \ulnone and \ul0 still switch off *all* > > underlines or has this be changed too? > > Yes, from the specification: > > "\ul Continuous underline. \ul0 turns off all underlining." > > The code is correct, the "\ul" keyword is a toggle property and the other > underline keywords are flag properties. But \ul0 stops *all* form of underline, as does \ulnone. So \ul and \ulnone need special treatments, which is not currently done in the import filter. > > Perhaps it would be better to use an enumeration for the underline styles? > The parsing of underline styles of KOffice is now incorrect: these keywords > are not booleans, but should select an underline style (flag). Yes, an enumeration would be better. I am going to see if I can do it before KOffice 1.3 RC 1, otherwise it will probably be for KOffice 1.4. (I would prefer if it could be tested by users.) > > > Have a nice day! > > bye, > > ewald Have a nice day! > > _______________________________________________ > koffice-devel mailing list > koffice-devel@mail.kde.org > http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel _______________________________________________ koffice-devel mailing list koffice-devel@mail.kde.org http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel