[Solved] Malfunctioning RTF files

[rd2016]

I've been using Open Office 4 on a version of Windows 8. Before I download the latest version, I need a problem addressed. Open Office creates corrupted, unusable, or truncated files when saving a document in a non OpenOffice format, most often RTF, thus rendering Open Office useless for creating text files. I assume this is a bug. Has this been fixed?

[John_Ha]

Open Office creates corrupted, unusable, or truncated files when saving a document in a non OpenOffice format

Welcome to the forum.

Writer does not create faulty .rtf files and this is not a bug so something else is happening.

See [Tutorial] Differences between Writer and MS Word files for an explanation of what may be happening. If you upload a "corrupted, unusable, or truncated" .rtf file someone can have a look at it.

If this solves the problem, please click the Edit button on your original post and add [Solved] in front of your subject.

[Zizi64]

Always save your documents into the native, International Standard ODF fileformats.
There is not 100% compatibility with the foreign fileformats.

[rd2016]

I cannot open this file in Open Office. I can open it in Wordpad, but almost all of it has been lost.

[Zizi64]

I can open your example RTF file with my LibreOffice 4.4.7,
and with my LibreOffice 5.1.2 Portable version.
But I can not open it with my Apache Openoffice 4.1.2 version.

[rd2016]

Do you get more than 5 short paragraphs?

[Hagar Delest]

General input/output error with AOO 4.1.3 (dev build) on xubuntu 16.04.

[Zizi64]

I converted it to native ODF format:

lefebvre_cybernetics.odt

(27.16 KiB) Downloaded 220 times

[RoryOF]

The same here on OO 4.1.3 RC1; the file was also truncated when opened with AbiWord, which reports errors in the file. I used OO 4.1.3 to export a formatted Writer file containing 77K words to RTF; this opened correctly.

[RoryOF]

The file, when opened in OO 4.1.3, terminated in a paragraph that started "W.R. Ashby" and ended with the letter "3". This seems more than Zizi64's screenshot.

[rd2016]

My RTF file was 104 K, which yielded what Zizi64 got.

[RoryOF]

OO 4.1.3 is giving the "W.R Ashby ... 3" paragraph, which comes immediately after Zizi64's text. Opening the file in a plain text editor shows it continues to a last phrase "the theory of knowledge and philosophy."

[John_Ha]

There is a lot more following the WR Ashby paragraph, which is in line 50. The file has 427 lines.

a .rtf file opens in Notepad or any similar text editor - .rtf files are flat ASCII files.

These are the first 55 lines viewed in Notepad. A possible problem could be with the presumably? matching right brace " } " for the left brace " { " which starts the file - it is the red one (in line 44) as "}}) of automatons, or the\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3" which seems to a strange place for it to be.

Code: Select all

{\rtf1\ansi\deff0\adeflang1025
{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f1\froman\fprq2\fcharset2 Symbol;}{\f2\fswiss\fprq2\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f3\fnil\fprq0\fcharset0 Times New Roman;}{\f4\fnil\fprq2\fcharset0 Microsoft YaHei;}{\f5\fnil\fprq2\fcharset0 Mangal;}{\f6\fnil\fprq0\fcharset128 Mangal;}}
{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue128;\red128\green128\blue128;}
{\stylesheet{\s0\snext0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\cf0\kerning1\hich\af7\langfe2052\dbch\af5\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033 Default;}
{\*\cs15\snext15\cf2\ul\ulc0\langfe255\lang255\lang255 Internet Link;}
{\s16\sbasedon0\snext17\sb240\sa120\keepn\hich\af4\dbch\af5\afs28\loch\f2\fs28 Heading;}
{\s17\sbasedon0\snext17\sb0\sa120 Text body;}
{\s18\sbasedon17\snext18\sb0\sa120\dbch\af6 List;}
{\s19\sbasedon0\snext19\sb120\sa120\noline\i\dbch\af6\afs24\ai\fs24 Caption;}
{\s20\sbasedon0\snext20\noline\dbch\af6 Index;}
}{\info{\author Ralph D}{\creatim\yr2016\mo10\dy3\hr22\min50}{\revtim\yr0\mo0\dy0\hr0\min0}{\printim\yr0\mo0\dy0\hr0\min0}{\comment OpenOffice}{\vern4100}}\deftab709

{\*\pgdsctbl
{\pgdsc0\pgdscuse195\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1134\margrsxn1134\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\pgdscnxt0 Default;}}
\formshade\paperh15840\paperw12240\margl1134\margr1134\margt1134\margb1134\sectd\sbknone\sectunlocked1\pgndec\pgwsxn12240\pghsxn15840\marglsxn1134\margrsxn1134\margtsxn1134\margbsxn1134\ftnbj\ftnstart1\ftnrstcont\ftnnar\aenddoc\aftnrstcont\aftnstart1\aftnnrlc
\pgndec\pard\plain \s0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\cf0\kerning1\hich\af7\langfe2052\dbch\af5\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}
\par \pard\plain \s0\nowidctlpar{\*\hyphen2\hyphlead2\hyphtrail2\hyphmax0}\cf0\kerning1\hich\af7\langfe2052\dbch\af5\afs24\lang1081\loch\f0\fs24\lang1033{\rtlch \ltrch\loch
}
\par \pard\plain \s17\sb0\sa120\qj{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
The automatic machine is a machine, as it is constructed, breaks down into its component parts, and can be rebuilt according to a rule (doubly determined: functional and structural). At the same time, it simulates life and thought. To what point does this simulation go, and to what point will it go? To indefinitely approaching the living and thinking model? Reaching this? Even superseding it in certain aspects (calculating power, intellect or intelligence) while remaining behind in others (sensation, emotionality)?}
\par \pard\plain \s17\sb0\sa120\qj{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
The machine, like art and the artist before it, imitates nature, animals and man as organisms (living and thinking). It reproduces these on the basis of inert (material) nature, without the possibility of assigning limits to this reproduction. Perhaps the automaton will define and cross the steps and transitions between materiality that is in appearance inert, and thought that appears to proceed from itself alone (between what certain philosophers would call the in-itself and the for-itself).}
\par \pard\plain \s17\sb0\sa120\qj{{\*\bkmkstart page163}{\*\bkmkend page163}\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
Cyberneticians raise a certain number of questions for discussion. What indexes make it possible to distinguish an automaton from a living creature (leaving aside operations that would destroy their object, submitting it to radiation, etc.)? Are these indexes on the\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
physiological}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
\~ level, the\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
psychological }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
level, or the\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
social}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
\~ level? According to cyberneticians, it is only in terms of the memory of an automaton that this function can be correctly defined. Human memory differs from this, as it has gaps. The human being forgets (perhaps because he \'91wants\'92 to forget!). The memory of the automaton is correct and perfect.}
\par \pard\plain \s17\sb0\sa120\qj{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
In the same way are its intellect and its language, at least virtually. Automatons will \'91speak\'92 the universal metalanguage, reached by successive approximations (Algol, Syntol, etc., present-day machine languages). Human discourse differs from this by its imperfections: excessive and useless redundancy, spaces between morphemes (words), silences. In the human being, emotion that seems completely personal and draws it into illusions of subjectivity is simply disturbance, hesitation. The automaton also expects: it examines all possible combinations and makes the right choice. It is more intelligent than the human being. Shall we say that it can neither laugh nor cry? But it can; so long as the programmer has well defined laughter and tears, the situation for laughter and the corresponding stimulus. And tears likewise. Spontaneity? That is not a distinctive criterion, since the automaton rediscovers it in the only precise meaning of the term: that which moves of itself, containing and preserving the principle of its movement. Dreams? Imagination? Given that these terms are defined as a function of the possible and the aleatory, they can be attributed to the automaton. All that remains for man are the illusions of subjectivity, the gaps, the holes. He would be an inferior automaton.}
\par \pard\plain \s17\sb0\sa120\qj{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
}
\par \pard\plain \s17\sb0\sa120\qj{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
And yet, if the automaton can be programmed to react differentially in relation to sexed beings, it is impossible at the present time to conceive it as\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
having}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
\~ a sex. Would the distinctive criterion be biological? That is to say, in itself \'91non-human\'92? We know moreover that the question of individual and psycho-physiological automatism is overlaid, or rather, complemented, by that of social automatism. Social controls, ready-made behavioural models, the influence of \'91patterns\'92, tend as we know only too well to robotize humans, into groups and by groups. The ability to code them onto punch cards proves this, as both\~ }{{\*\bkmkstart page164}{\*\bkmkend page164}\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
result and effective cause. The question that is raised, therefore, is that of\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
hominization}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
\~ (a term we borrow from [Pierre] Teilhard de Chardin, to show the determination of his theology}{{\*\bkmkstart ch6fn2}{\*\bkmkend ch6fn2}{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK }\scaps0\caps0\cf1\striked0\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\ulnone\ulc0\b0\animtext0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
2}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
}}) of automatons, or the\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
robotization}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
\~ of men. Has not the human being, in a parody of the God of Genesis, created the automaton in his own image, in order to summon it to him and recognize himself in it? This encounter, this association, this strange couple and its product, we could call the\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
cybernanthrope.}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
\~ Are we already cybernanthropes?}
\par \pard\plain \s17\sb0\sa120\qj{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
W. R. Ashby, in\~ }{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
An Introduction to Cybernetics}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
, defines this as the \'91science of control and communication in animal and machine\'92 \'96 like the art of government, he adds ironically.}{{\*\bkmkstart ch6fn3}{\*\bkmkend ch6fn3}{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK }\scaps0\caps0\cf1\striked0\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\ulnone\ulc0\b0\animtext0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
3}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
}}\~ The truths of cybernetics are autonomous. They \'91do not depend on any other branch of science. Cybernetics has its own foundations.\'92 It is to the actual machine (mechanical, electrical, nervous, economic) what geometry is in relation to the objects of our terrestrial space. It has as its particular object the domain \'91of all possible machines\'92. It is thus in a position to indicate \'91new interesting and suggestive parallelisms between machine, brain and society\'92. In particular, it brings a common language \'91which enables one branch of science to utilize a discovery by another\'92.}{{\*\bkmkstart ch6fn4}{\*\bkmkend ch6fn4}{\field{\*\fldinst HYPERLINK }\scaps0\caps0\cf1\striked0\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\ulnone\ulc0\b0\animtext0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
4}{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3

[rd2016]

Thanks for checking this out. How do I restore this to readable form?

[Zizi64]

Open Office creates corrupted, unusable, or truncated files when saving a document in a non OpenOffice format,

Do you have an original (native) fileformat version of your converted document?

[John_Ha]

How do I restore this to readable form?

Open the .rtf file with Notepad, or rename it to a .txt file and open it with Writer, and remove all the control characters leaving just the unformatted text. Copy the text into Writer and format it. Now save as a .odt file

Has the file ever been edited by any other application other than Writer? Were you sent the file? Has it been opened in MS Word or in MS WordPad? I think the reason LO opened it is that LO has different? better? error handling than AOO and was able to ignore some errors which AOO could not process. Your comment "I can open it in Wordpad, but almost all of it has been lost." suggests that WordPad was confused by the error(s) as well.

If this solves the problem, please click the Edit button on your original post and add [Solved] in front of your subject.

[rd2016]

I produced the file in Writer, but saved it only in RTF format. I have opened it in WordPad, but I did not modify it in any way. I have not tried to open it in Ms Word. I could try this on another computer. I will try to restore the file as you suggested. I would not want to lose the italics and paragraph breaks, but a plain text is better than not losing everything. I have installed OO 4.1.2, replacing the previous version I was using. I will work on this and mark this thread as resolved if I succeed. I usually save everything in RTF format as I work on different computers in different locations and I don't always have the option of installing software at will.

[RoryOF]

I suggest working in .odt (which will open in later versions of MS Word) or in .doc format.

[jrkrideau]

I\Open Office creates corrupted, unusable, or truncated files when saving a document in a non OpenOffice format, most often RTF, thus rendering Open Office useless for creating text files.?

Why are you using an RTF file format? As far as I am aware it is a very old format that has little or no support and it is certainly not a 'pure' text format.

I opened your file in a text editor and calling RTF a "text" format is the equivalent of a LaTeX file a 'text' file. They are text but both contain large amounts of formatting code

RTF looks like an off-shoot of something like GML (General Markup Lanaguage). See example in the code segment.

Code: Select all

\par \pard\plain \s17\sb0\sa120\qj{\scaps0\caps0\cf1\expnd0\expndtw0\i0\b0\rtlch \ltrch\loch\fs28\loch\f3
The automatic machine is a machine, as it is constructed, breaks down into its component parts, and can be rebuilt according to a rule (doubly determined: functional and structural). At the same time, it simulates life and thought. To what point does this simulation go, and to what point will it go? To indefinitely approaching the living and thinking model? Reaching this? Even superseding it in certain aspects (calculating power, intellect or intelligence) while remaining behind in others (sensation, emotionality)?}

If you need a text file why not save the file as a text file File > Save As > select the All formats tab at the bottom right and select Text.

PS. I am getting only 5 paragraphs in LibreOffice and when I try openning the RTF file in Abiword, it opens with a warning and then seems unstable, that it, it keeps flashing as if it is trying to resolve some kind of problem,

[John_Ha]

II usually save everything in RTF format as I work on different computers in different locations and I don't always have the option of installing software at will.

That is an extremely bad idea as .rtf is a very crude and very limited file format - see [Tutorial] Differences between Writer and MS Word files.

It is STRONGLY recommended that you always work in, and save files as, .odt files.

Be aware that if you work in, and save in, .rtf or .doc format, you may lose formatting if you use function which is not supported in .rtf or .doc - see Saving as .rtf file makes most of the document disappear? for such a case where saving in Microsoft's .rtf file loses data.

If you save in .doc, and you have a crash, you cannot recover temporary files Using RECUVA to un-delete Writer temporary files which are now deleted as this method only works for.odt files.

All versions of MS Word after 2007 can both read and write .odt files. Google docs uses .odt format.

See Use Word to open or save a document in the OpenDocument Text (.odt) format which says:

After you install 2007 Microsoft Office system Service Pack 2 (SP2), you can open and save files in the OpenDocument Text (.odt) file format used by some word processing applications, such as OpenOffice.org Writer and Google Docs.

[MPEcho]

I produced the file in Writer, but saved it only in RTF format. I have opened it in WordPad, but I did not modify it in any way. I have not tried to open it in Ms Word. I could try this on another computer. I will try to restore the file as you suggested. I would not want to lose the italics and paragraph breaks, but a plain text is better than not losing everything. I have installed OO 4.1.2, replacing the previous version I was using. I will work on this and mark this thread as resolved if I succeed. I usually save everything in RTF format as I work on different computers in different locations and I don't always have the option of installing software at will.

After some fiddling around (I really should be working, but never mind .. .) It seems that when saving, a "}" character was inserted repeatedly where it did not belong. If you identify and remove, the correct ones, you can fix the file with less damage. Here is an alternate method that should work (tested on a few segments only):
If you can open the document, eg first five paragraphs in OO, then do so. Note the last words that are visible in the document. Now also open the file in a plain jane text editor, one that will show all the RTF coding. Search for the last few words in the text editor. For example, I find on opening that the last words are:

Code: Select all

of automatons, or the\~ } 

Note and delete the trailing "}" so that it now looks like this:

Code: Select all

of automatons, or the\~  

Now save the file in your text editor. In OO File | Reload. The next block of text should be there. Rinse and repeat.

[RoryOF]

Here is what I got from it using a variation of the above method. It will need careful reading and reformatting, but I think all the text is there apart from the first five paragraphs.

[rd2016]

Thanks I'll check this out. I was fiddling with the code myself, and managed to restore a few paragraphs, guessing where the problems might be, but then I messed it up. I tried this several times with backup copies of the original corrupted file.

[John_Ha]

It seems that, when saving, a "}" character was inserted repeatedly where it did not belong.

Notepad++ will be useful - if you place the cursor at a left brace, it changes the brace to red, and also changes the matching right brace to red, making it easier to find it. Similarly - place the cursor at a right brace and it, and the matching left brace, are changed to red.

[rd2016]

Thanks to all for your help. After restoring this file correctly formatted I saved it in Open Office format. As I don't have a sufficiently current version of Word, I took the file elsewhere and read it into Word 2010. I got a warning saying the file was corrupted, but Word still accepted it and I could continue to make adjustments. To be on the safe side, I saved it as a current Word document, a Word97-2003 document, and in rich text format. All three formats worked just fine. Again: because I never know what computer I'll be using at any given time, I customarily use RTF format. With Word I never have a problem inputting or outputting RTF files, no matter what version of Word I use. Only Open Office gives me trouble. But since I am now aware of the problem, I won't make the same mistake again. So I consider this matter resolved. There were some aspects of the previous OO that didn't thrill me; now I'll see what improvements have been made in the current version.

[Zizi64]

With Word I never have a problem inputting or outputting RTF files, no matter what version of Word I use.

The RTF and the DOC format was developed by same developers. They was developed by MS. They had documents for those non publicated fileformats.

[John_Ha]

wiki says:

The Rich Text Format (often abbreviated RTF) is a proprietary document file format with published [only after a loooooong wait] specification developed by Microsoft Corporation from 1987 until 2008 for cross-platform document interchange with Microsoft products.

Most word processors are able to read and write some versions of RTF. There are several different revisions of RTF specification and portability of files will depend on what version of RTF is being used. RTF specifications were changed and published with major Microsoft Word and Office versions.
...
Microsoft did not initially make the RTF specification publicly available, making it difficult for competitors to develop document conversion features in their applications. Because Microsoft's developers had access to the specification, Microsoft's applications had better compatibility with the format. Also, every time Microsoft changed the RTF specification, Microsoft's own applications had a lead in time-to-market, because competitors had to redevelop their applications after studying the newer version of the format.

Novell alleged that Microsoft's practices were anticompetitive in its antitrust complaint against Microsoft

It appears development ceased in 2008 which could suggest the format is now obsolete. .docx is a better, easier for humans to read, format - albeit extremely verbose.