While I'm willing to bet >>8 is a Windows user who thinks Adobe's reader is the only thing that handles PDFs, the fact that PDFs become actually usable with third-party clients does not make PDF not a shitfest.
>>11
Have you ever actually tried to work with a PDF file? The structure of it, if you can even call it structure, is a total goddamn mess. Manipulating a PDF file is like having to write all your code using dos debug.com.
Postscript may be difficult to work with as well since it all but requires a PS interpreter, but shit, at least it has a proper source form.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 2:19
Sussmanashi no Naku Koro Ni?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 2:38
Bokusatsu Tenshi Sussman-chan?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 6:25
>>16
PDF documents aren't intended to be modified once it has been generated. Try using tools for their intended purposes.
Why the fuck would I want to __edit__ a pdf? If I'm creating it, it's from latex, and I don't give a shit how it's done. If I'm reading it, I can copy and paste* from it if I want with kpdf into my editor of choice, emacs**.
*, **: yank and kill don't sound right in this particular case.
If you wanna buy some other things which are not listed in our website: http://www.rs-item.com http://www.rsloads.com http://www.g2gmart.com
please contact with our customer service with on-line chat or add our Email,we will stock it for
you in a short time after you told us what you needed.
>>26 You are not an EXPERT BBCODE PROGRAMMER.
Here's how EXPERT BBCODE PROGRAMMER would type your post: Why the fuck would I want to __edit__ a pdf? If I'm creating it, it's from latex, and I don't give a shit how it's done. If I'm reading it, I can copy and paste[1] from it if I want with kpdf into my editor of choice, emacs[2].
[1], [2]: yank and kill don't sound right in this particular case.
Please obtain a copy of SICP today, and learn how to be an EXPERT BBCODE PROGRAMMER.
The typesetting actually bothered me because it didn't have orphan/widow line avoidance. I think Word has this since version 6.0.
In any case, how would you solve the "PFD problem"? You want something that preserves exact formatting for printing, but on the other hand you want reflow, editability and content extraction. Also, you need WYSIWYG editing if you ever plan on having more than sub-1% market share.
I guess DOC/DOCX/ODT would fit the bill, except it lacks certain formatting/typesetting features and doesn't really preserve exact formatting BECAUSE GETTING TO AGREE IN WHICH WAY A FUCKING TTF FONT IS TO BE RENDERED IS TOO DIFFICULT, SO WE JUST IGNORE THE PROBLEM AND LET THE DOCUMENT BREAK EVEN FROM VERSION TO VERSION OF THE OS-SUPPLIED TEXT LAYOUT LIBRARY.
PDF is kinda fine, properly created PDFs include layout information which kinda allows reflow and text extraction.
HTML is shaping up to be a decent contender if you don't need pages and exact printing layout. With embeeded font support (Opera 10, Safari 3, Firefox 3.1), you can even create HTML documents that actually don't hurt to read and don't like 99% of webpages.
All of them suck in their own way, but that said, I have to disagree with people who complained about PDF being "complicated": it's the least complicated format of DOC, DOCX (haha), ODT, and HTML+CSS. There are plenty of implementations and all of them seem of very good quality, it's hard to see a PDF rendered incorrectly. The others are marred with retro-compatibility bullshit, forced lenient parsing to tolerate garbage, and are generally too big and redundant, specially HTML+CSS.
With embeeded font support (Opera 10, Safari 3, Firefox 3.1), you can even create HTML documents that actually don't hurt to read
why the fuck would you set fonts that hurt to read as the defaults in your browser?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-18 23:37
>>39
Because he doesn't have any yet, and is hoping to rip them out of someone else's page