Jump to content

Rich Text Format: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

27 September 2024

26 July 2024

9 March 2024

31 January 2024

4 January 2024

11 November 2023

26 June 2023

14 June 2023

25 April 2023

4 October 2022

1 August 2022

11 June 2022

9 June 2022

9 May 2022

12 April 2022

29 March 2022

13 February 2022

  • curprev 17:3417:34, 13 February 2022 77.61.180.106 talk 42,346 bytes −104 Code syntax: I've done an extensive search and I found no evidence, nor has anyone else for over ten years. Some people online just state it without evidence, but I've found no credible publications or scientific articles and tellingly also no (former) Microsoft employees corroborating this. Commands have different names and even though \, { and } are used, they're used differently: {\group vs \group{ These are common meta-characters in programming. They might even have been taken from C. undo
  • curprev 16:4416:44, 13 February 2022 77.61.180.106 talk 42,450 bytes −20 Objects: Even the sources we cite say that a vector representation is more probable and that complete disappearance shouldn't happen. undo
  • curprev 16:3416:34, 13 February 2022 77.61.180.106 talk 42,470 bytes −251 Objects: O'Neill's discussion about bitmaps isn't as representations of objects, but rather rather about embedding actual bitmaps. What he says about them is true, but it doesn't support what is said here. As for what happens when an object isn't supported, I don't see how it's significant how his toy project handles that and also no evidence that he actually tested his assumption that his software wouldn't display them. In my experience in normal software, such objects do display. undo Tag: references removed
  • curprev 16:1916:19, 13 February 2022 77.61.180.106 talk 42,721 bytes −375 Criticism: I read that article and it contains the following: ‘RTF…is basically a…serialized version of a Word document's in-memory representation’ This is either inherently true but meaningless because you could say that about any document saved to a file, or meaningful but untrue. Indeed, the article itself provides some evidence that RTF is no straightforward representation of what goes on inside Word internally. Therefore, Hannes Schmidt is not a reliable source. undo

6 February 2022

13 December 2021

13 October 2021

24 September 2021

17 June 2021

23 April 2021

16 April 2021

15 April 2021

14 March 2021

6 March 2021

26 February 2021

9 February 2021

14 January 2021

7 January 2021

2 January 2021

29 December 2020

15 December 2020

29 November 2020

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)