Web Sharing Viewer RTF, missing spaces/indents


I have spent AGES creating a document to highlight coding guidelines we use here. Indentation is an important part of coding. I shared them all on the network via web sharing and the spaces or indents used in the code are not shown. These are in RTF documents. The indents/spaces are maintained in a Text document, but we need RTF because we have other formatting used.

Also, a user cannot edit a RTF document, no formatting options, only text.

Also, seems links to folders are stripped out…

I upgraded to Pro Office to use this web sharing facility, but I am starting to feel its not finished.

Similarly second level bullets which should be indented from the parent bullet, are not indented, its all one flat list.

That’s unfortunate. I don’t recall seeing in the feature list for “Web Sharing” that RTF formatted displays (and editing) were going to be supported.

Maybe an interim solution is to use Google Drive, which does a passable job with rich text documents – these can be shared, and sharing can include bookmarking a Google Drive document in DEVONthink, which in turn shows up in the Web Sharing interface. (The benefit of a shared Google Drive doc is that it can be edited by collaborators while preserving the format.) Another interim solution is to print the RTFs to PDF and put the PDF side by side with the RTF for read-only viewing purposes.

I realize you want a solution from DEVONtech, but maybe until then these approaches would help.

We are moving away from Google Docs to Devonthink, we want to minimise files across systems so dont think that would be suitable for us.

I copied and pasted some text from Word into it and the tabs in that were maintained… something behind the scenes different to a normal tab maybe, and looks like only for Courier New font (which is OK for code). So I am copying that tab to where there are Devonthink inserted tabs, and changing text to Courier New and i can see tabs. But this is a workaround obviously.

I assumed editing would be, so cant argue with that… but I honestly dont think it should be an advertised feature to say that RTF files will be displayed as RTF files! In fact, if they are not then THAT should be displayed, i.e. a statement to say RTF files will NOT display as RTF files! Maybe it does and I missed it. But you would expect a web viewer like this to display the files as they should be, pdf, word etc. whether you can edit them or not.

My guess is RTF is not HTML, and as this is a browser it cannot interpret the RTF formatting maybe.

No doubt RTF and HTML are different formats. According to Wikipedia, RTF’s format type is a document file format and HTML’s is a markup language.

I don’t know which, if any, web browsers natively support RTF document rendering. Perhaps IE, since Microsoft is the mutual developer. Schubert|it’s Word Browser Plugin “displays a preview of Word, Rich Text Format, OpenDocument and OpenXML documents inside the Safari browser window.”

Nope. At least, IE 10 doesn’t. It sends the document off to Word for viewing.

I am also really looking forward to the possibilites of the web interface but I think the developers are just getting started with it. I have set up a headerless mac mini just to work as a devonthink webserver to experiment with. I have high hopes that the developers will add the ability to replicate docs from the web interfac, to trigger applescripts, and with rtf editing to be able directly link to documents.

As far as rtf support I think the answer would be to either incorporate one of the rich text editing components that some cmses have or perhaps better to partner with zoho http://www.zoho.com as quite a few file sharing sites like http://www.filocity.com have done. I would really like this kind of buy-in option as it would instantly allow the editing of common document types (word, excel, pdf) directly from the web interface. This would almost instantly multiply the usefulness.

I have been really impressed with zoho for web based document editing. Its streets ahead of google docs in most areas and worth the price if you need this kind of functionality.


Hmm, it’s been around quite a long time … did get a little prettier this year. That’s true.

I like @Frederiko’s wish list, though many suggestions may be difficult in a standard HTML interface or with sandboxing (e.g., trigger AppleScripts from the web interface).