CCN presentation

On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 11:35:03 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>
wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
BenS ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

PDF is for document transfer, HTML is for formatting of
simple text in a web browser. Two totally different
purposes. If you print an HTML page it will not look like
it does on the screen, pretty useless if you want to give
someone a document. PDF on the other hand will look
exactly the same.

Dearly beloved, what is 'a document'? Why does the precise
rendition of it matter two hoots?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In any case, PDF does not answer even that question with
any precision.

Yes it does. A pdf will look the same printed as it does
on the screen.

Modulo avialability of fonts, resolution, anti-aliasing,
gamma, paper stock, paper size, and just about
everything else.

Anti-aliasing is dealt with for the bulk of PDF content -
it's a vector-form data-type after all, based on anti-
aliasing font technology as used in offset lithograph
printing presses, and used by font manufacturers.

Fonts are embeddable in PDFs, to account for the fact a font
may not be available at the far end.

Resolution is dealt with via the anti-aliasing and vector-
scaling facilities.

PDF was originaly designed for B&W documents, and in them,
gamma correction is not an issue. If gamma-correctness is
important for you as you print out, it is possible to gamma-
standardise your output device, prior to output.

If you want to crop the paper to the image suze, feel free
to use a post-output guillotine, or use the correct size of
paper. Or just scale the output to fit your paper stock.

Quoted message said:

If you're anal about what it looks like, why not use
paper?

It's much faster and cheaper to transmit a PDF file 12,000
miles than to do the same for a paper document. Once it's
travelled 12,000 miles, it's much easier, faster and
cheaper to produce 500 hard copies of a PDF file than of a
paper document.

Red-herrings done with yet?

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 20:58:02 +0100, "Simonb"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It really isn't that difficult to extract information
from a pdf file as the format is so well documented.

But then the question arises: should it have to? Plain text
and well-constructed HTML have served us well -- so why
should we have to change to accommodate a format which is
designed for visual consumption?

Because 'visual consumption' covers more than just
plain text.

But your underlying complaint really seems to be difficulty
of use with voice-readers.

Which might be one of two different problems.

Reading the plain text in a document: As has already been
pointed out, the text information in a PDF document is
readily accessible. Perhaps your voice-reader software just
needs an upgrade.

Reading non-textual information, e.g. diagrams, charts, etc
(After all, many people produce documents under the
impression that a picture can be worth a thousand words.)

If your real complaint is that PDF files include more than
just plain text then tell me - how does your voice-reader
cope with non-plaintext in HTML documents?

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 09:28:28 +0100, "Simonb"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not aware of many HTML browsers having that built in
as standard.

No. But people very poor eyesight use specialised software
which reads plain text and properly-designed HTML.

There is nothing preventing the providers of such software
read PDF. It is an openly published format, from which plain
text can be readily extracted.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

you know? said:

Quoted message said:

Can anybody explain to me why anyone ever uses Acrobat, or
why anyone thought it might have been a good idea in the
first place? It's the world's most incompetent, inflexible
and unusable data format.

Because it allows you to present data in the format you
want, including fonts and the like, ensuring that just
about everybody sees the same thing. It is the easiest and
most robust way of achieving this without using print.

I'm almost sorry for having started the HTML versus
PDF debate.

You're quite right, Guy, about the formatting, etc, but
ensuring everyone sees the same file is not much use if few
actually read the document. (FWIW, I did.) In the right
circumstances PDF is fine. However, I seem to be coming
across more and more PDFs on the web these days and not many
of these are pages designed specifically for printing -
strict formatting is not necessary.

Regarding your own document, I realise why you PDFed it: the
need for speed (yuk!).

James

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:39:30 +0100, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm almost sorry for having started the HTML versus
PDF debate.

And so you should be ;-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

you know? said:

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 16:39:30 +0100, James Hodson
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'm almost sorry for having started the HTML versus
PDF debate.

And so you should be ;-)

Almost.

James

Gawnsoft said:

If you want to crop the paper to the image suze, feel
free to use a post-output guillotine, or use the correct
size of paper. Or just scale the output to fit your
paper stock.

Acrobat Reader on Windows appears to default to scaling the
document to whatever paper size and margins it thinks the
connected printer has. This is a royal PITA when you
actually /want/ to use it as the "camera-ready" format
people like to believe it is.

(I was trying to print address labels. After acrobat had
finished resizing the page, the printed text didn't line up
with the label bundaries any more: try debugging /that/ over
the phone)

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before
you confirm"