Problems with Annotated Hyperlinks in Preview Document
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: AES on 10 Nov 2009 19:48 Tony Lawrence <pcunix(a)gmail.com> wrote: and dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > I am always slightly puzzled by the attachment people have towards PDF > > for material that is *almost certainly* not going to be printed. I hated > > wading through the long PDF manual on a cordless phone yesterday, had it > > been a well made HTML set of pages, it would have been a breeze to get > > the info I wanted. PDFs are clumsy beasts and your own story in this > > thread further convinces me, just look at the apps you have mentioned > > and have used in the construction of these things. > > > > With a proper web page, all you basically need is a text editor. A lot > > from a little. It is the great principle that will get you into a > > particularly cosy corner of heaven. <g> and dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> ADDED: > I'll second that. Unless you need precise control of the way the > thing looks, stay away from PDF. It just adds unnecessary > complication for everyone. I'll second the first line of the first post, and add that posting a document on a web site rather than distributing it as an email attachment should be mandatory for any case where said document needs to be called to the attention of a large distribution list, but will only actually be opened and read by a very few of those. (My university has a maddening tendency to email documents like huge policy manuals, and then repeated policy manual revisions, to huge faculty and staff mailing lists as email attachments, when there are maybe 3 people in the whole university who really want a personal working copy of those documents on their desk or their HD -- and if you have several responsibilities in the hierarchy, or are listed in several departments, you get sent multiple copies of these massive documents). But that said, if you're actually going to distribute a document that some people are going to want to print, PDF is the _only_ way to go -- despite the assertions of the second post. [Although I'm in the happy situation of being retired but still having certain organizations that want me to help out with things, and even occasionally pay me. Nonetheless, I no longer need to maintain or continually upgrade, re-learn, and pay for programs like MS Office -- I can just alert any such organization that emails that come to me with attachments having suffixes like .doc, .docx, .xls, .ppt are caught by filters and simply go straight to the Trash.]
From: Nick Naym on 10 Nov 2009 19:55 In article doraymeRidThis-B5EFBA.11345111112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 7:34 PM: > In article <C71E8290.4B5A8%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> What in the hell are you talking about?? (Better yet: What in the hell are >>>> you smoking? ;P ) >>> >>> You have cast this aspersion on me before, >> >> Not I. > > Prove it! <g> You're the accuser...the burden of proof is _yours_! :P -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: dorayme on 10 Nov 2009 20:12 In article <C71F75C0.4B615%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > In article doraymeRidThis-B5EFBA.11345111112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme > at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 7:34 PM: > > > In article <C71E8290.4B5A8%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> What in the hell are you talking about?? (Better yet: What in the hell > >>>> are > >>>> you smoking? ;P ) > >>> > >>> You have cast this aspersion on me before, > >> > >> Not I. > > > > Prove it! <g> > > > You're the accuser...the burden of proof is _yours_! :P Nick, you are the first with the impertinence, that makes it your cross to bear. Here is your chance to extirpate your sin. Have you got better things to do? No? Right, then get cracking on an exhaustive list of those who have doubted my sobriety and I want to see you missing. -- dorayme
From: Nick Naym on 10 Nov 2009 20:19 In article doraymeRidThis-ED0B31.12125611112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 8:12 PM: > In article <C71F75C0.4B615%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> In article doraymeRidThis-B5EFBA.11345111112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme >> at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 7:34 PM: >> >>> In article <C71E8290.4B5A8%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, >>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> What in the hell are you talking about?? (Better yet: What in the hell >>>>>> are >>>>>> you smoking? ;P ) >>>>> >>>>> You have cast this aspersion on me before, >>>> >>>> Not I. >>> >>> Prove it! <g> >> >> >> You're the accuser...the burden of proof is _yours_! :P > > Nick, you are the first with the impertinence, that makes it your cross > to bear. Here is your chance to extirpate your sin. Have you got better > things to do? No? Right, then get cracking on an exhaustive list of > those who have doubted my sobriety and I want to see you missing. Yeah, right. Have another drink (or smoke...whatever). -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
From: dorayme on 10 Nov 2009 21:12
In article <C71F7B51.4B61B%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > In article doraymeRidThis-ED0B31.12125611112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme > at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 8:12 PM: > > > In article <C71F75C0.4B615%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> In article doraymeRidThis-B5EFBA.11345111112009(a)news.albasani.net, dorayme > >> at doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 7:34 PM: > >> > >>> In article <C71E8290.4B5A8%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > >>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>>>> What in the hell are you talking about?? (Better yet: What in the hell > >>>>>> are > >>>>>> you smoking? ;P ) > >>>>> > >>>>> You have cast this aspersion on me before, > >>>> > >>>> Not I. > >>> > >>> Prove it! <g> > >> > >> > >> You're the accuser...the burden of proof is _yours_! :P > > > > Nick, you are the first with the impertinence, that makes it your cross > > to bear. Here is your chance to extirpate your sin. Have you got better > > things to do? No? Right, then get cracking on an exhaustive list of > > those who have doubted my sobriety and I want to see you missing. > > > Yeah, right. Have another drink (or smoke...whatever). While you have another sheep? <g> At least now you cannot deny you have cast aspersions on more than one occasion! -- dorayme |