Quote:
Originally posted by $bill
I raise these technical points because I think some users just want some additional ways within UR to easily format text and thus request further RTF support. I am not sure that RTF is the best way to proceed. Nor would I try to duplicate all "word processing functions".
|
I agree. It's quite possible that many of the competing applications we've been discussing use HTML editors, rather than RTF. My answer is,
who cares? Most users wouldn't know the difference and HTML is more standard anyway. If HTML components are more readily available, then please, at least give us the
option of using an internal HTML editor, rather than the crappy RTF editor. Perhaps it could be a preference setting. That way users who have tons of documents stored in RTF would still be able to view/edit them, but other users would have the option to start using HTML.
Again, if it's a question of cost to buy another component, charge us extra for it. Kinook are you listening?
We are desperate for better built-in editing capability. You've made an incredible product and you have an extremely loyal customer base, but the RTF editor is the Achilles Heel of UR. It's the one thing about UR that keeps me (and other users) constantly in search of alternative applications like SQLNotes or MyInfo, for example.