From: Scott Bryce on 12 May 2010 19:15 dorayme wrote: > Well, I have forgotten the context of this remark of mine. I was just > saying, if I recall, that there are other valid and realistic reasons > other than printing for the occasional or limited use of PDFs on > website. And even though I stated as a rule that PDFs should only be used when the content is intended to be printed, I have no problem with occasional exceptions if a competent developer has good reasons for making them.
From: dorayme on 12 May 2010 19:30 In article <hsfcr5$7k9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Scott Bryce <sbryce(a)scottbryce.com> wrote: > dorayme wrote: > > Well, I have forgotten the context of this remark of mine. I was just > > saying, if I recall, that there are other valid and realistic reasons > > other than printing for the occasional or limited use of PDFs on > > website. > > > And even though I stated as a rule that PDFs should only be used when > the content is intended to be printed, I have no problem with occasional > exceptions if a competent developer has good reasons for making them. Fine. I think it is often the case that developers stick in PDFs precisely because they do not have to make them. They just shove them on the server and provide a link, job done! If they are ridiculous in size and not meant for printing, it is almost no work to export them to lower res the pictures. -- dorayme
From: dorayme on 12 May 2010 19:44 In article <michelle-DA7732.16341512052010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: > In article <hsfcr5$7k9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Scott Bryce <sbryce(a)scottbryce.com> wrote: > > > And even though I stated as a rule that PDFs should only be used when > > the content is intended to be printed, I have no problem with occasional > > exceptions if a competent developer has good reasons for making them. > > PDFs were designed as a means to exchange documents between various systems > and software; that's why it's named what it is: Portable Document Format. I am sure Scott knows this. The dispute is in the context of an agreed idea that it is not a generally best practice thing to put a PDF up on a web page where web viewing is the intention if the time and money is available to do the job properly in HTML and CSS. -- dorayme
From: Scott Bryce on 12 May 2010 22:34 dorayme wrote: > In article > <michelle-DA7732.16341512052010(a)62-183-169-81.bb.dnainternet.fi>, > Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote: >> PDFs were designed as a means to exchange documents between various >> systems and software; that's why it's named what it is: Portable >> Document Format. > > I am sure Scott knows this. The dispute is in the context of an > agreed idea that it is not a generally best practice thing to put a > PDF up on a web page where web viewing is the intention if the time > and money is available to do the job properly in HTML and CSS. Exactly. I jumped in when someone suggested PDf as an a alternative to HTML to accomplish cross browser compatibility of complex screen layouts. That I would not consider a good use of PDF.
From: Phillip Jones on 13 May 2010 00:01
Michelle Steiner wrote: > In article<hseju3$1k7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Phillip Jones<pjones1(a)kimbanet.com> wrote: > >>> But I just checked the list of plugins in my copy of Safari, and I >>> didn't see any for PDFs, not did I see any from Adobe. >>> >> There are two places to put plugins. one is in the main Library> >> Internet-plugins > > Regardless of where they are placed, they would be listed in the Installed > Plug-ins window of Safari, and there are no PDF plugins listed in that > window. > > I checked both internet plugin locations in the Finder, and here are no pdf > plugins in either place. > > And as a final check, I unchecked "enable plug-ins" in Safari's > preferences, and still could view PDFs. > That means that Safari can read PDF's natively. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjones1(a)kimbanet.com |