| Re: anyone know of RTF translator? [message #176325 is a reply to message #176323] |
Wed, 21 December 2011 16:36   |
Robert Heller
Messages: 60
Registered: December 2010
Karma:
|
Member |
|
|
At Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:59:29 -0600 "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop(at)ninehells(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:16:19 -0600, Robert Heller wrote:
>> At 20 Dec 2011 21:15:36 GMT Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:05:34 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/19/2011 7:06 PM, Michael Joel wrote:
>>>> > I could really use some "add on" app/script that would allow me to
>>>> > supply a RTF (rich text format) file and it translate it to HTML. Of
>>>> > course free is preferred.
>>>
>>>> Open it in MS Word
>>>> Save it in HTML
>>>
>>> You owe me a keyboard cleaning Jerry. Honestly, have you seen the garbage
>>> that msword outputs when you ask it for html.
>>>
>>> Open office might be better, I don't know. It generates this for a
>>> document containing a single word:
>>
>> Word Processors (*ALL* of them) generate horrible HTML (MS-Word might
>> be the worst of the lot). The problem is the Word Processors are all
>> 'WYSIWYG' and HTML *by definition* is *NOT* WYSIWYG: HTML markup allows
>> for wide variation in what is displayed -- nothing is set in stone.
>> All of the markup is vague and open-ended and the browser is free to do
>> whatever it likes and the enduser is allowed wide latitude in
>> configuring almost everything from fonts to screen/window size and
>> resolution. In order to preserve the 'intended display, the word
>> processor must use lots of 'torturous' HTML to attempt to force the
>> proper display.
>
> Isn't that ideal? Funnily enough, that's how most word processors work
> these days, at least in the hands of people that actually know how to
> use them instead of that merely think they do. The evidence of this
> is that every real word processor these days includes the ability to
> mark up text exactly like HTML does, and the magic ability to redefine
> the styles associated with the classes of text, exactly like cascading
> style sheets do. The issue is an astronomical percentage of people
> using Word never touch the things and do all that kind of stuff by
> hand instead. Which doesn't make the HTML output of Word any better.
> When used properly, Word doesn't generate HTML much worse than any
> bottom-rack, one-semester-of-experience HTML "designer". When given an
> elaborate document created by the average typist-turned-electronic
> keyboard jockey, that turns into a complete mess. But that's not (all)
> Word's fault. There's just a lot more idiots using Word to create HTML
> output that there are using LibreOffice to create HTML.
The problem is mostly the fault of the WYSIWYG editer / user-interface.
It makes it way too easy to use 'visual design' (which is bad), rather
than 'logical design' (which is good). Document preparation systems
like LaTeX *separate* the editor function from the generation function.
This forces one to use logical design, which results in cleanly
formatted documents (and if generating HTML, clean and simple HTML).
>
--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / heller(at)deepsoft(dot)com
Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]