[hacker]

Originally Posted by nevar_maor

RTF to Plucker is not the same as Plucker to RTF.

Of course it isn't. They are complete opposites. I don't think anyone, including me, suggested that the code I provided would go in the opposite direction.

Does it work in reverse?

No, it does not. It could be made to work in reverse easily enough, if someone wanted to write that bit of logic. I could probably do such a thing in about an hour, including testing. Just a little unpluck-to-RTF, and you're done.

I would like to convert a bunch of plucker files to rtf. (plucker is waaaaaay too big, 3M+)

Plucker is nowhere near 3M+ in size. The latest viewer + ZLib support is roughly 352k in size, total.

If you mean the Plucker content you are creating is 3M+ in size, that is entirely possible, depending on what factors you used when building it.

Did you enable zlib compression? (40% savings in size, roughly)

Did you include images? At what bit depth? Lower bit-depth images produce smaller .pdb files.

Did you enable alternate images? That'll bloat the .pdb quite a bit.

How many links are in the .pdb? Hundreds? Thousands?

There are so many factors that can change the size of the .pdb file.

There's a RichReader for palms that works with rtf files. Check it out. (search Google for richreader palm) And 44k in size versus 3M for plucker.

Plucker is 270k without the external ZLib support, not 3M. Please correct your misconceptions about Plucker, so we don't confuse the other users here on the forum.

RichReader is 44k because it does something entirely different. Comparing the features and size of RichReader to Plucker is like comparing the speed of a Porsche to the taste of an orange.