Editor-not html-that uses text+gifs or jpgs?

[Shadow]

I use Wordpad as a rough editor for text and images. However,
it uses BMPs only and the file becomes large very quickly. If
I had a prog that would use gifs or images, with simple text formatting
like bold and italic and a few fonts, that would be great.

HTML is too much hassle.

Help appreciated.

S.

 

[Tanner]

Don't believe its possible. RTF is your only option and if you paste any
images into it -- jpg, gif, whatever -- they are converted to bitmap before
storing. The result, as you've discovered, is large files.

As Irfanview powertip workaround, store your file as a more obsure file
format type and associate exclusively with Irfanview. Now embed an RTF-style
link to that image in your document. When you want to view the image, click
on the link and up will pop Irfanview with the image.

Otherwise it's back to HTML for you. . .

--M--

 

[JanC]

I use Wordpad as a rough editor for text and images. However,
it uses BMPs only and the file becomes large very quickly. If
I had a prog that would use gifs or images, with simple text formatting
like bold and italic and a few fonts, that would be great.

Maybe AbiWord ?

HTML is too much hassle.

You might try a wysiwyg HTML editor like Mozilla Composer to edit HTML?

 

[REMbranded]

Maybe AbiWord ?

Close, but not quite. I tried a few editors that I have. I insert a
94k .jpg enclosed by two lines of text, "This is the beginning," and
"This is the end."

Abiword saved a 2407k .rtf file.
Crypt Edit saved a 4727k .rtf file.

Atlantis Nova saved a 181k .rtf file.

It's funny, but viewing the 181k file in Crypt Edit displays only the
two text lines, while Abiword displays the image and the two lines of
text. It would seem that if Abiword can read a .jpg object that it
would have the ability to save the object as a .jpg, or better, as a
..png object. I tried saving in several formats, including the Abiword
format, but none preserved the .jpg object.

I can't seem to find the Atlantis home site, but it is included with
the text utilities on the PL site:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/PL2003TEXT.htm

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):

Close, but not quite. I tried a few editors that I have. I insert a
94k .jpg enclosed by two lines of text, "This is the beginning," and
"This is the end."

Abiword saved a 2407k .rtf file.
Crypt Edit saved a 4727k .rtf file.

Atlantis Nova saved a 181k .rtf file.

This subject is raising a series of questions for me. About RTF especially,
plus about the OLE operations. I don't yet have those questions well
forumulated, and am poking around myself with a few WPs, together with
the small subset of RTF editors that have an Insert function.

There is one thing I did want to get out of the way first. It pertains to
this specifically:

It's funny, but viewing the 181k file in Crypt Edit displays only the
two text lines, while Abiword displays the image and the two lines of
text.

Are we sure that Abiword is telling the truth? That it is in true RTF format
that it saved the document?

I tried a similar operation just now, and the result file, allegedly an RTF,
was displayed as blank not only by Cryptedit -- but also by Wordpad. This
makes me suspicious about Abiword's (am using the 2001 version btw) claim
that it's done an RTF save. Confirm/Deny anyone?

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):

Are we sure that Abiword is telling the truth? That it is in true RTF format
that it saved the document?

I can't imagine the raw view of the alleged rtf file providing any clue.
Certainly doesn't for me (after the first two words of it below). But just
in case some possiblity the raw dump does have readable meaning....

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0
{\colortbl
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;}
{\stylesheet}
\kerning0\cf0\viewkind1\paperw12240\paperh15840\margl1440\margr1440\widowctl
\sectd\sbknone\colsx360\headery0\footery0
\pard{\*\shppict{\pict\pngblip\picw451\pich302
\bliptag1068298942{\*\blipuid
[...then read garbarge begin, where the picture information is]

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):

Atlantis Nova saved a 181k .rtf file.

It's funny, but viewing the 181k file in Crypt Edit displays only the
two text lines, while Abiword displays the image and the two lines of
text.

Ah, now that I reread, I seeesomething significant that I'd misread:
Nova had done the Save. Not Abiword.

So add that experiment together with my similar one, where I had Abiword
do a save, with a result file that Wordpad could not read.

Turns the question to what? Not sure quite yet. Main seems I've just lost (?)
a virgin notion: RTF is an RTF is an RTF.

 

[omega]

I use Wordpad as a rough editor for text and images. However,
it uses BMPs only and the file becomes large very quickly. If
I had a prog that would use gifs or images, with simple text formatting
like bold and italic and a few fonts, that would be great.

HTML is too much hassle.

Shadow,

Important question for you.

Do you intend to use these documents only locally? To not transmit to other
computers? And further, would you mind if the documents were in a proprietary
format, such that whatever application you use to make them, it will be the
one you need to use to read them?

If your answers here are "yes, no problem," then I can put together a small
list for you, of programs to try, supporting images, in formats smaller than
BMP embeds in RTF.

If your answers are more "no," that you need compatibility, particularly
for having these documents readable & editable on other people's computers...

Then I'd suggest one main route you could start considering is a word
processor -- the more advanced the better. One where you could locally
save your docs in a compressed proprietary format; but a WP which will also
let you export, when needed; ideally out into HTML. You might, for instance,
inquire into how well the WP component in the OO suite would serve for that.

 

[REMbranded]

This subject is raising a series of questions for me. About RTF especially,
plus about the OLE operations. I don't yet have those questions well
forumulated, and am poking around myself with a few WPs, together with
the small subset of RTF editors that have an Insert function.

There is one thing I did want to get out of the way first. It pertains to
this specifically:

Are we sure that Abiword is telling the truth? That it is in true RTF format
that it saved the document?

I'm using AbiWord v1.0.6 and it has two selections, .rtf and old .rtf.
The file sizes are identical in using these, but there must be a
difference in there somehow or another.

The beginning of each file:

Abi (new)
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0
{\fonttbl

Abi (old)
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033
{\fonttbl

Atlantis:
{\rtf1\ansi\deflang1033{\fonttbl
{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial;}
{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2

WordPad:
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033
{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}}


It appears each identifies itself in a similar manner. There is all
kinds of stuff pertaining to fonts, etc. in Abi, where Atlantis is
tiny in comparison. Note that WordPad and Abi (old) have identical
beginnings.

In looking at the photo characters, the photo is stored as hexadecimal
characters in all files. It appears one is a hex .jpg and the other a
hex representation of a .bmp. I dunno what the heck WordPad stored the
image as.

I tried a similar operation just now, and the result file, allegedly an RTF,
was displayed as blank not only by Cryptedit -- but also by Wordpad. This
makes me suspicious about Abiword's (am using the 2001 version btw) claim
that it's done an RTF save. Confirm/Deny anyone?

The image did not display for any of the 3 files in WordPad on my
machine either. Both lines of text did display in all 3.

The same file created from file in WordPad is18,995k !!! This is
approaching 19 megabytes from two lines of text and a 94k .jpg file.

It seems clear that WordPadhas a different way of managing objects
inserted into .rtf and, unexpectedly <G>, MS provides for a bit of
unnecessary bloat in this situation.

I can see long series of repeating strings, so WordPad makes no effort
at all to compress the object and the algorithm is absolutely wacky.

I prefer to wonder if WordPad is telling the truth here. That's
terrible performance. Other authors have far better solutions!

 

[REMbranded]

omega <[email protected]> wrote:

I can't imagine the raw view of the alleged rtf file providing any clue.
Certainly doesn't for me (after the first two words of it below). But just
in case some possiblity the raw dump does have readable meaning....

I think that all programs use this as a method of verifying the file.

Pkzipped files begin with "PK", which if deleted corrupts the file. PK
was looking for proper identification that the file is indeed of the
correctly formatted pkzipped file, rather than say an .rtf file. In
the latter case it reports the error. In the first it unzips the
correctly formatted file if it is not corrupted in another error.

Note that this is looking at a binary file as if it were an ascii
file. Not much other than "PK" is displayed correctly, as these are
ascii characters.

The .rtf files have a format that begins with many ascii characters,
so you can actually compare them until you hit the encoded photo.

 

[REMbranded]

Ah, now that I reread, I seeesomething significant that I'd misread:
Nova had done the Save. Not Abiword.

So add that experiment together with my similar one, where I had Abiword
do a save, with a result file that Wordpad could not read.

Turns the question to what? Not sure quite yet. Main seems I've just lost (?)
a virgin notion: RTF is an RTF is an RTF.

Haha. I know the feeling. Further, Abiword is very "clunky" on my
machine. It freezes everything up while it is spinning "its web."

Atlantas Nova is far superior IMO on my machine. It stays smooth. I
can switch windows while it is encoding and saving.

I need to get back on the text project I began. Today is as good as
any I suppose. I was attempting to compare the features of various
text and programming editors and word processors, but time caught up
with me.

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):
[...]

The beginning of each file:

Abi (new)
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0
{\fonttbl

Abi (old)
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033
{\fonttbl

Atlantis:
{\rtf1\ansi\deflang1033{\fonttbl
{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2 Arial;}
{\f37\froman\fcharset0\fprq2 [...]
The same file created from file in WordPad is18,995k !!! This is
approaching 19 megabytes from two lines of text and a 94k .jpg file.

It seems clear that WordPadhas a different way of managing objects
inserted into .rtf and, unexpectedly <G>, MS provides for a bit of
unnecessary bloat in this situation.

[...]

Rembranded,

I tell you, I am utterly befuddled. Until this AM, had always considered
RTF just a simple little thingy. 8-0

I greatly appreciate your useful observations and experiments. I am saving
your post for offline rereading/contemplation.

What a strange surprise, this stuff!

 

[REMbranded]

omega <[email protected]> wrote:

I tell you, I am utterly befuddled. Until this AM, had always considered
RTF just a simple little thingy. 8-0

I greatly appreciate your useful observations and experiments. I am saving
your post for offline rereading/contemplation.

Here is a belated link I was working on with a great amount of help
from Susan and with the php assistance of Lars. I got bogged down and
it went to the back burner. I'm going to try to get back on it and
appreciate any feedback that anyone might have, particularily if you
can supply the information for any programs not listed or listed and
incomplete, or see any mistakes:

http://www.woundedmoon.org/PL/text1rev02.php

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):

Here is a belated link I was working on with a great amount of help
from Susan and with the php assistance of Lars. I got bogged down and
it went to the back burner. I'm going to try to get back on it and
appreciate any feedback that anyone might have, particularily if you
can supply the information for any programs not listed or listed and
incomplete, or see any mistakes:

http://www.woundedmoon.org/PL/text1rev02.php

I'd read the discussions on your project and downloaded some of your early
deliminated (.csv) files. I was amazed with how much you got done, and more
so that it was in such a short timespan.

I tried not clicking your current results at all, but only lasted that a
day. Yet I do continue to succeed in resist taking even first step into,
say, global cross-compare of my installed text editors (100+). I view the
subject as enormous, so am cautious. (After PL is over, probably will
then permit myself taking some looks into a few parts of the subject.)

Now, on this one specific area brought up in this thread, the different
RTF saves and sizes between a handful of RTF+WP editors, I've been still
dwelling on that. Includes that I've begun a litte reading for the question,
"RTF, What Is."

One thing I hadn't even been aware of is that it's...a Microsoft Standard.
Perhaps orignially borrowed/taken/stolen from somebody else (said from IBM),
since that's BG's top skill. Yet at present is nevertheless defined as
a proprietary Microsoft format. Difference between RTF and some other
propietary WP formats is that MSFT makes public the full specs for RTF.

I haven't got too far in my reading. First glance is showing different
levels of the RTF specs. There's a doc for 1.1 that I've found, and on up
to about RTF specification 1.6...for what I've thus seen. And, oh, have
learnt that those characters you were analyzing, they're called "control
words." But I'm already typing more than I intended, advance of having
anything mapped in my mind. Meant to only post here that I am still in
the process of puzzling the thing over.

On specific handling by different RTF-eds and WPs, I did get done a list
of those which have no ability to add graphics, vs those which do. I'll
probably post that up later on. It seems someone hunting for an RTF editor
would want to know which ones have that limit.

Now the further area, comparisons amongst those editors which do support
graphics, there are still some things one would want to know.

You already achieved the hightest priority question, who does the file size
the smallest.

And you started with some results about who can read whose files. Additional
results on this last would be useful, and it's something I intend to look
into a bit...

I mean, once upon a time (ie prior to a few days ago), I'd very mistakenly
had the commonplace notion that RTF was a universal format compatible with
any RTF-aware reader. Yet given what we've witnessed, that's quite untrue.

 

[REMbranded]

omega <[email protected]> wrote:

I'd read the discussions on your project and downloaded some of your early
deliminated (.csv) files. I was amazed with how much you got done, and more
so that it was in such a short timespan.

Susan did most of the work. She's unbelievable!

Now, on this one specific area brought up in this thread, the different
RTF saves and sizes between a handful of RTF+WP editors, I've been still
dwelling on that. Includes that I've begun a litte reading for the question,
"RTF, What Is."

One thing I hadn't even been aware of is that it's...a Microsoft Standard.
Perhaps orignially borrowed/taken/stolen from somebody else (said from IBM),
since that's BG's top skill. Yet at present is nevertheless defined as
a proprietary Microsoft format. Difference between RTF and some other
propietary WP formats is that MSFT makes public the full specs for RTF.

I felt that it was a MS standard of some sort. There obviously is
quite a bit of play room, that is, to modify the standard to a
proprietary format that some programs can handle and others cannot.

I haven't got too far in my reading. First glance is showing different
levels of the RTF specs. There's a doc for 1.1 that I've found, and on up
to about RTF specification 1.6...for what I've thus seen. And, oh, have
learnt that those characters you were analyzing, they're called "control
words." But I'm already typing more than I intended, advance of having
anything mapped in my mind. Meant to only post here that I am still in
the process of puzzling the thing over.

I think most modifications from the "MS Standard" are sheer
improvements. WordPad failed dismally in inserting the 94k .jpg into a
file. Nova excelled, and was still using the control words for the 1.1
standard. At 761k, the download and the program are top notch. There
are quite a few registry entries, but the working size is 50 megs and
the program is very smooth in operations.

You already achieved the hightest priority question, who does the file size
the smallest.

There might be others that do well also. I did not have many WP's in
the list that was compiled from discussions here in ACF by Susan.

And you started with some results about who can read whose files. Additional
results on this last would be useful, and it's something I intend to look
into a bit...

I mean, once upon a time (ie prior to a few days ago), I'd very mistakenly
had the commonplace notion that RTF was a universal format compatible with
any RTF-aware reader. Yet given what we've witnessed, that's quite untrue.

In theory, it should be. However, when the implementation from MS is
so terrible I think it is the natural course to improve upon the
"standard," which regulates it as the starting point, not the end
point.

Did you see anything about .bmp, .jpg, .gif implementations in the old
standards? Particularily about how the images are stored and
compressed? .bmp is not the best path, especially with no compression
scheme (the 18+ meg file created in WordPad).

..

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed):[I'm snipping most of your post for the moment, because it's too early for
me to have anything to say, without thinking + reading]
[...]

Did you see anything about .bmp, .jpg, .gif implementations in the old
standards? Particularily about how the images are stored and
compressed? .bmp is not the best path, especially with no compression
scheme (the 18+ meg file created in WordPad).

My search is only at initial stage, so so far have only come across one
document that has a tad of discussion there. It won't serve to answer the
question directly, but seems to give a good hint on the kind of things
involved.

http://www.codeproject.com/cs/miscctrl/csexrichtextbox.asp
Codeproject > .NET > C# Controls > Edit Controls

<quoted>

Inserting an Image

When an image is pasted into a RichTextBox (or WordPad or Microsoft Word),
the image is embedded in a Windows Metafile (WMF) and the metafile is
placed in the document. The InsertImage method does the same thing, but
without using the clipboard.

According to the RTF Specification v1.6, it is possible to insert bitmaps,
JPEGs, GIFs, PNGs, and Enhanced Metafiles directly into an RTF document
without first embedding them in a Windows Metafile.

However, while this works with Microsoft Word, if images are not embedded
in a Windows Metafile, WordPad and RichTextBox simply ignore them.

</quoted>