Last Updated: 31 Oct 2018 07:54 by ADMIN
Created on: 15 Mar 2017 10:11
Category: RichTextBox
Type: Feature Request
RichTextBox: Implement import of bullets and numbering in Word 6.0/Word 95 format from RTF
Implement import of bullets and numbering which use the old Word 6.0/Word 95 format from RTF. This includes, but is not limited to, the following RTF tags: \pnlvlN, \pnlvlblt, \pnlvlbody, \pnlvlcont. See RTF specification, "Word 6.0 and Word 95 RTF" heading for full description.

WordPad and some legacy systems export lists with this formatting, so the construction is relatively widespread.

According to the specification, if RTF reader doesn't support specific bullets/numbering tags, it can use the \pntext tag to read the bullets/numbering as plain text; but currently RadRichTextBox always ignores the \pntext tag. Because of this, the bullets or numbers of lists in the old format are missing after import.
Posted on: 23 Mar 2017 07:02
Hello Amul, we've additionally reviewed the problem and I edited the item with the team's latest findings. Now the item closely resembles the item originally logged by you ( ), sorry for the initial confusion. Our conclusion is that this is missing functionality, so I changed the type of the item to Feature request. The implementation will require some effort, and is not planned for the next release; so at this point we cannot commit to specific time frame.
Posted on: 16 Mar 2017 12:49
We are into Healthcare domain and this is a critical issue since we are using RadRichTextBox for patient data. The data (format) loss resulting due to this bug in RadRichTextBox would amount to serious patient safety issues.

Will it be possible to get a fix within 2 weeks or so?

Best regards, 
Amul Karuvath
Posted on: 16 Mar 2017 07:10
This issue is still not schedule for fixing. When we planned it we will update the description of the feedback item here. We can see that you have already subscribed to the item so you will be notified when the status of the item is changed.
Posted on: 15 Mar 2017 17:22
When could we expect a fix?