3 ms·

Rich text pasting sounded like such a great idea 10 years ago. Let's just admit that it has proven to be the wrong choice 90% of the time. Can we start a petiti

• vesinisa 12y ago
  That's so true. Most of the time, you are pasting short passages, that should adapt to the target document style. It is a pretty rare use case that you copy and paste a larger snippet of another document. And only then it might make sense to retain the source formatting.
• Argorak 12y ago
  Defaulting to "paste and match style" (which could be plain text) would be quite sufficient, IMHO.
• derefr 12y ago
  It’s really the difference between “rich text” (what you get from Markdown, what you used to get in Wordpad, sort of what HTML2 is like) and “styled text” (what you get from CSS.) In professional publishing tools (InDesign, Publisher), these are rightly thought of as two separate formats: your content is rich text, written by a journalist or copywriter and saved as .rtf. Your publication is a set of flows, each of which has a data binding to a separate rich-text document, and a set of styling information applied on top. Really, I’d be just fine if pasting text kept the bold parts bold, the italics italicized, and the links linked (i.e. kept the “rich text” parts) between, say, an HTML page and a Word document. What I don’t want is for the Word document to render the text in 11pt #222222 Helvetica, just because that’s what the page was styled like. That’s a property of the flow the text was in, not the text itself.