When you burn down housing developments, turn loose rodents that kill livestock and pets, and "adopt" pets from animal shelters to kill them, that's what I'd call militant.
Yeah, the Acrobat software itself is getting pretty bloated and crappy. The file format is pretty nice though. Thankfully the two aren't really connected in any particular way that matters.
PDF/X and such is a subset of the full PDF specification. PDF/X or/A or whatever files aren't "based on PDF" they are PDFs, you can open them normally in any old PDF reader.
But Adobe didn't "strongarm MS into removing it"... they really can't, the PDF specification license is open to everyone, including MS. That's the important point.
PDF is not a de facto standard. As I mentioned in another post, there are ISO standards for PDF. The spec is fully open, you could go download it now, no agreeing to anything required (though it is something like 1100 pages, better get some coffee).
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather get a PDF than an MS Office document. The MS Office document has nearly zero chance of rendering completely correctly in Abiword or openoffice, where the PDF will nearly always work flawlessly.
That's the benefit of a completely open standard that anyone can implement, like PDF has.
Those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Adobe moved from PS (a language) to PDF (a page description language), because making your page description language a programming language has some serious drawbacks.
Procedural generation of content isn't worth the extra hassle of getting programming language style bugs (stack over/underflows, infinite loops, etc) in your documents.
Reader doesn't support overprint preview, but the full Acrobat and some ghostscript output devices (tiffsep) do. If you render overprinting objects, partial transparency isn't a problem.
There's nothing in there for interactivity though, it's strictly a fixed document format.
That's on purpose. The PDF/X subsets of PDF are limited to features that will reliably allow blind communication between content producers, prepress, and printers.
You could always use the other colorspaces with the more interactive PDF features like javascript, but you couldn't call the result a PDF/X compliant file.
I do wonder why you want non-RGB colorspaces with interactive content, however.:P
PDF has settled down a lot lately. Besides, it wasn't too much of a problem when printers went from Postscript 1 to 2 to 3. PDF hasn't broken compatibility in a way much different than the transitions from the different PS levels did, except for the fact that we didn't have lot of manufacturers jumping the gun like we did with PS level 2.
Well what we are discussing is how the GPL suddenly applies when indeed no GPL code is anywhere near the blob you are distributing.
I still don't buy that you can become subject to a pure copyright license (i.e. not a contract) even though you never distributed or modified any part of the work covered under it.
I'm struggling with analogies here. I guess one could be making a keyboard/mouse macro (or shell script) that would accomplish something useful when given a particular version of a piece of software. Surely that's not a derivative work of the software its designed to command, right?
You don't need Acrobat Reader to open PDFs, you know. There's a lot of less annoying choices out there that work fine with pretty much any reasonable PDF you throw at them.
PDF already is compatible in the ways you state, is stable, and exists in many ISO approved forms. ISO 15930-2 ISO 15930-6:2003(E) i.e. PDF/X driven by prepress industry, PDF/A ISO standard requested by the US government.
We already have a standard, open, format for this sort of presentation. We don't need another. We REALLY don't need another from a company that is known to "embrace and extinguish" competing implementations of standards.
Slashdot Mirror
At single-digit efficiency you can get from seebeck effect type devices, it's just not worth it really.
You just have to keep the generators in phase. It's not that hard.
I had a couple of real estate agents tell me this, though I've been unable to back that up by digging through the Utah state legal code
It's probably all common law and not codified in most places. Right of easement is what you are probably referring to. It's real.
If it is codified it's probably done on a local level in the building ordinances, not a state level.
That might work if it weren't Java.
It sucks when people take good project ideas and ruin them by picking a lanugage like Java.
If those pages don't validate, it's not the browser that's broken, it's the pages.
Any position that wields the hammer of government to coerce people into their social viewpoint is inherently violent.
When you burn down housing developments, turn loose rodents that kill livestock and pets, and "adopt" pets from animal shelters to kill them, that's what I'd call militant.
you shouldn't attempt to make this into a ... warfare thing ... Insurance companies will pick up the bulk of the costs
And insurance companies get their money from the magical money well where fairy elves shoot out of my ass?
No. That money comes out of everyone's pocket. When you take money from everyone to support a few people, what's that called? Oh, right, welfare.
There's two main engines, xpdf and ghostscript. GSView for windows would work for ghostscript, xpdf for windows for xpdf. :P
Neat, thanks!
Yeah, the Acrobat software itself is getting pretty bloated and crappy. The file format is pretty nice though. Thankfully the two aren't really connected in any particular way that matters.
PDF/X and such is a subset of the full PDF specification. PDF/X or /A or whatever files aren't "based on PDF" they are PDFs, you can open them normally in any old PDF reader.
MS employs a lot of people. A lot of those employees read Slashdot. So I vote for astroturfing.
Adobe never said they wanted to charge MS anything. That was speculation apparently put out by MS, or some sloppy reporter.
But Adobe didn't "strongarm MS into removing it"... they really can't, the PDF specification license is open to everyone, including MS. That's the important point.
I know what all those things are. You missed my point.
PDF is not a de facto standard. As I mentioned in another post, there are ISO standards for PDF. The spec is fully open, you could go download it now, no agreeing to anything required (though it is something like 1100 pages, better get some coffee).
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather get a PDF than an MS Office document. The MS Office document has nearly zero chance of rendering completely correctly in Abiword or openoffice, where the PDF will nearly always work flawlessly.
That's the benefit of a completely open standard that anyone can implement, like PDF has.
Those that don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Adobe moved from PS (a language) to PDF (a page description language), because making your page description language a programming language has some serious drawbacks.
Procedural generation of content isn't worth the extra hassle of getting programming language style bugs (stack over/underflows, infinite loops, etc) in your documents.
Reader doesn't support overprint preview, but the full Acrobat and some ghostscript output devices (tiffsep) do. If you render overprinting objects, partial transparency isn't a problem.
There's nothing in there for interactivity though, it's strictly a fixed document format.
:P
That's on purpose. The PDF/X subsets of PDF are limited to features that will reliably allow blind communication between content producers, prepress, and printers.
You could always use the other colorspaces with the more interactive PDF features like javascript, but you couldn't call the result a PDF/X compliant file.
I do wonder why you want non-RGB colorspaces with interactive content, however.
PDF has settled down a lot lately. Besides, it wasn't too much of a problem when printers went from Postscript 1 to 2 to 3. PDF hasn't broken compatibility in a way much different than the transitions from the different PS levels did, except for the fact that we didn't have lot of manufacturers jumping the gun like we did with PS level 2.
Well what we are discussing is how the GPL suddenly applies when indeed no GPL code is anywhere near the blob you are distributing.
I still don't buy that you can become subject to a pure copyright license (i.e. not a contract) even though you never distributed or modified any part of the work covered under it.
I'm struggling with analogies here. I guess one could be making a keyboard/mouse macro (or shell script) that would accomplish something useful when given a particular version of a piece of software. Surely that's not a derivative work of the software its designed to command, right?
You don't need Acrobat Reader to open PDFs, you know. There's a lot of less annoying choices out there that work fine with pretty much any reasonable PDF you throw at them.
PDF already is compatible in the ways you state, is stable, and exists in many ISO approved forms. ISO 15930-2 ISO 15930-6:2003(E) i.e. PDF/X driven by prepress industry, PDF/A ISO standard requested by the US government.
We already have a standard, open, format for this sort of presentation. We don't need another. We REALLY don't need another from a company that is known to "embrace and extinguish" competing implementations of standards.