Talk:Rich Text Format Directory
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rich Text Format Directory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Computing Stub‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Apple Inc. Stub‑class | |||||||||
|
Windows XP
I'm not sure I understand the interest of this edit:
"On Windows XP, RTFD files are displayed as folders. editing these folders destroys the RTFD. this should be fixed in future versions of Microsoft Word, or may be an update for Word 2008, but the status is unknown at this time."
If someone can make it clearer and more interesting, I think that would be good. Mlewan (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
GNUstep
"In contrast to RTF, RTFD files cannot be opened by applications on Windows or other non Mac OS X operating systems, as this kind of bundle files currently only are supported on Mac OS X."
GNUstep (and, therefore, any applications written using GNUstep) has had the ability to open RTFD files for some years now. Applications capable of doing so run on both Windows and *NIX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.192.45 (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"supports scalable high quality image formats like PDF"
lolwut? PDF is a document format, not an image format. Perhaps SVF was ment? 173.14.75.181 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. PDF is meant. You can use it to store scalable images, and they display fine in rtfd. If you can find a better way to phrase it, feel free to change the text, but PDF is what is meant. Mlewan (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Article is currently NONSENSE
At the moment, this article is garbage. Everything in the first paragraph is wrong -- it's basically saying that an .rtfd file is the same as a PDF. Whoever wrote this article was either drunk or a total ignoramus.