Rich Text Editor is awful

[cashew]

So I was playing around with Rich Text Editor and have come to the conclusion that it is as bad as it has always been and I don't understand why anyone would want to use it. The only thing that it seems remotely better at doing is copy-pasting tables from Word, but even then it results in tons of horrible formatting problems with the rest of the typed text. Furthermore, god help you if you switch between Rich Text and Markdown, because apparently the two editors do not interpret the line breaks the same. So even though the line break is present in the Rich Text draft, it's lost when you post if you switch over to markdown to fix some excessive/wrong tagging.

Also, Rich Text does not have headers or details and the cut function completely reformat stuff you've typed. The only time I can see Rich Text being slightly more useful is when you have nothing else in the entry other than unformatted text mixed in with tables. Otherwise, Markdown is superior in every way.

Aaaand...that's it. I'm still feeling the effects of long COVID but at least I'm no longer hacking up a lung.

Comments

[tanithryudo]

Why are you trying to use Rich Text editor? I thought rtf files went out with the old Windows releases.
If it's for coding, have you considered Notepad++ instead?

[cashew]

Dreamwidth's create entries page has multiple formats (RAW HTML, Casual HTML, Markdown, and Rich Text). I'm talking about Dreamwidth's built-in create entries module, not rtf editors. (denise goes into detail about it here.)

If you haven't tested the beta features, I highly recommend using the Markdown version of the create entries page because it cuts down on so much tagging. Plus it integrates with HTML tags so you can always switch to HTML if there's something not covered by Markdown.