Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PDF Is Now ISO 32000

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the long-and-winding-road dept.

Software 410

It is official. As PDF Architect Jim King blogged today, Adobe has received word that the ballot for approval of PDF 1.7 to become the ISO 32000 Standard (DIS) has passed by a vote of 13 positive to 1 negative. A two-thirds majority is required to pass so it was a large margin of victory (93%). The vote breaks down as follows: Countries voting positive with no comments (9): Australia, Bulgaria, China, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine. Countries voting positive with comments (4): UK (13 comments), USA (125), Germany (11), Switzerland (19). Countries voting negative with comments (1): France (37 comments). Countries abstaining (1): Russia.

cancel ×

410 comments

Slipping? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581005)

          TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
          T                        T
          X  I Like Ponies!!!111!  X
          X                ,       X
          X               })`-=--. X
          X              }/  ._.-' X
          X     _.-=-...-'  /      X
          X  {{|   ,       |       X
   ______ X  {{\    |  \  /_       X
  /   O O\   }} \ ,'---'\___\      X
/        \                         X
/ _    \   \ LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
  I\____\   \        TT
  I I I I\__/        II
   \I_I_I/_         _II
           \ _ _ _ i IIo
            \----- i_IIO
             \       LL

Please control the human population, have sex with ponies!

01001000 01100101 01101100 01110000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110100 01110010 01101111 01101100 01110100 01101000 01100101 01101000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110000 01101111 01110000 01110101 01101100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00101100 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 01110011 01100101 01111000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110000 01101111 01101110 01111001 00100001

Re:Slipping? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581149)

OMG!!! Ponies!

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581015)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
goatse is now ISO 32000 [goatse.ch]

ISO? (5, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581019)

So where can I download an ISO of PDF tools?

Re:ISO? (5, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581389)

While I realize this is supposed to be an amusing turn of phrase, there are actually quite a few tools out there. A few that I like are:

PDFBox [pdfbox.org] - OSS Library for modifying PDFs on the fly.
FOP [apache.org] - Use XSL-FO to design printable page layouts in XML, then use FOP to transform them to PDF documents.
Foxit Tools [foxitsoftware.com] - Alternative to the overpriced Adobe products.
OpenOffice [openoffice.org] - The built-in support for PDFs is absolutely wonderful. I rarely give out DOC files anymore.
FPDF [fpdf.org] - PHP PDF generation tools.
iText [lowagie.com] - A great library for your own custom PDF generation.

Those are just a few. The PDF format itself is actually not too bad. (When Adobe isn't breaking it with needless revisions, that is.) It's biggest strength is that the psuedo-text nature of the format allows one to diagnose the internals of a file pretty easily. Its greatest weakness is that things like text fields are needlessly convoluted. At the end of the day, though, it's a pretty good format.

Re:ISO? (1)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581565)

> FOP - Use XSL-FO to design printable page layouts in XML,
> then use FOP to transform them to PDF documents.

Right on. I used Docbook + FOP to write my JavaCC book [generating...javacc.com] ; FOP held up fine for most things. It had some problems with (as I recall) callouts and footnotes, though, so, I did the final version with AltSoft's [alt-soft.com] XML2PDF.

Speaking of which, if you're writing a lot of DocBook, Bob Stayton's Docbook XSL [sagehill.net] is indispensible. I bought the third edition and you can tell that he monitors the mailing list closely; he answers a lot of common questions.

France... (5, Funny)

nebaz (453974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581023)

We should rename the application "Freedom Bat Reader", to protest their no vote.

Re:France... (1, Interesting)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581049)

OK so why is this good but the Microsoft format is bad?

Fact is that some proprietary formats become defacto standards. If the proprietary owners are willing to make them more open then they should be recognized as official standards.

Re:France... (5, Insightful)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581079)

RTFA. It's almost a subtle jab at how different the PDF standardization process has been from the OOXML standardization attempt. The PDF process has been straightforward, with no "trickery," and the proponents were actually working to improve the standard and resolve technical problems.

Re:France... (4, Insightful)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581093)

"OK so why is this good but the Microsoft format is bad?
Fact is that some proprietary formats become defacto standards. If the proprietary owners are willing to make them more open then they should be recognized as official standards."

Because PDF works and can be implemented?

There are many implementations of PDF including commercial and open source ones. They can interoperate with high fidelity. OOXML isn't even implemented according to the specs in MS Office 2007 and there are no other reliable implementations.

Re:France... (3, Informative)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581153)

Presumably the standard submitted was sufficient that any person wishing to do so could use it to create a standards compliant PDF viewer/writer without hitting any major technical or partially documented issues or ambiguous 'IP' concerns. The OOXML standard didn't fail because its a Microsoft format, or because it's proprietary, it failed because (reportedly) the standard document contained ambiguous elements and was insufficient in itself for a third party to fully implement the standard in their own applications.

Of course the various other shenanigans (such as alleged bribery attempts and quasi ballet stuffing) that plagued the OOXML submission probably haven't helped either.

Re:France... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581345)

OK so why is this good but the Microsoft format is bad?
Go look at the specs for OOXML. They're an embarrassment to the computer science community. You'd think there was no such thing as formal requirements. PDF is very well defined, which makes it possible for third parties to use it.
I might also add that the entire point behind the ambiguity in OOXML is to lock users into Microsoft Office. I can use any PDF viewer, because it is a well defined standard, but if the only viewer that displayed PDF's 100% correctly was Adobe's, I'd have to use them. Same idea with OOXML. If 90% of the world uses Microsoft's interpretation of the standard, and I try to use something else, everyone else is going to have trouble with my documents. I'll have to use Microsoft Office, or have people be annoyed with my poorly formed documents.

I'm not anti-Microsoft, I'm just disgusted with this issue.

Re:France... (2, Informative)

m2943 (1140797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581521)

OK so why is this good but the Microsoft format is bad?

Because this format is technically pretty good, while Microsoft's format is technically bad.

Fact is that some proprietary formats become defacto standards

Microsoft's format wasn't rejected because it was from Microsoft, it was rejected because it was bad and needed work. If (and only if) Microsoft is willing to put in the work and make changes to the format, then OOXML can become an ISO standard as well.

Re:France... (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581591)

OK so why is this good but the Microsoft format is bad?
Because it's vapourware, whereas Adobe's Portable Document Format [wikipedia.org] has been around for almost 15 years.

Re:France... (5, Insightful)

mysticgoat (582871) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581599)

OK so why is this good but the Microsoft format is bad?

Let me count the ways that PDF succeeds:

  1. Over two dozen pdf readers and editors available
  2. Full support on numerous different platforms
  3. Full support from multiple vendors
  4. Complete documentation
  5. Reasonably concise documentation
  6. Clear documentation
  7. Free of proprietary constraints
  8. And probably a number of other reasons, but this short list should suffice.

If OOXML met these criteria, it would stand a fair chance of becoming an accepted standard, too. But Microsoft does not seem to think that meeting these criteria are in its best interests, presumably because that would mean that people could use OOXML without buying licenses to Microsoft products. Microsoft isn't thinking clearly at this time; it is confusing some of the fantasy aspects of its "vision" with the evolving realities of the market it is trying to sell product to.

Re:France... (2, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581211)

Would you like Adobe Fries with that? Made from real Adobe

Might be a dumb question, but... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581041)

Can someone please explain to me what this means?

Re:Might be a dumb question, but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581163)

It means you touch yourself at night.

Re:Might be a dumb question, but... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581275)

How'd you know?!

Re:Might be a dumb question, but... (0, Flamebait)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581427)

Can someone please explain to me what this means?

What this means is that you now have to correct your website and where it says "Download document as PDF" change it to "Download document in ISO3200 standard," or risk the ISO sending the monkeys out from castle to get you!

Re:Might be a dumb question, but... (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581455)

32000 even

ps2pdf (0)

Nutria (679911) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581047)

So when will ps2pdf17 be released?

Comments? (2, Interesting)

Khaed (544779) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581067)

I don't suppose there's a link anywhere to read the comments, especially those of the lone dissenting country? I'm curious as to their reasoning.

Re:Comments? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581127)

They probably complained that the 'F' was at the end of the acronym instead of at the front.

Re:Comments? (5, Funny)

harrkev (623093) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581329)

Ok. Here is an excerpt from the French reasoning:

How you English say, I one more time-a unclog my nose in your direction, sons of a window-dresser! So, you think you could out-clever us French folk with your silly acrobat-creating about programming behavior! I wave my private parts at your aunties, you heaving lot of second-hand electric donkey bottom biters.

Re:Comments? (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581485)

Fetché la OOXML!

Re:Comments? (-1, Flamebait)

bizitch (546406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581363)

Cheese eating surrender monkeys!!!!

PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (0, Flamebait)

boxlight (928484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581071)

PDF is a nice document format. But Adobe Acrobat is not a very nice application to use. It's bloated and quite "90s" and needs an update bad.

Apple's QuickView and Preview app does a much nicer job of viewing PDFs. Adobe should totally get Apple to build their PDF viewer.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (3, Informative)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581119)

I like Foxit [download.com] on Windows machines. Incredibly small and lightweight and works in your browser.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581401)

And all you have to do is participate in a scam to get it!

Or, ya know, pay.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581441)

In the link, next to the word "License" there is another word. "Free"

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (0, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581487)

Click on "download" idiot. Their idea of "free" is "get someone else to pay for it by link scam".

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (2, Insightful)

FasterthanaWatch (778779) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581543)

I think what started this debate is that the "obvious" link on the foxit site gives you that scam for their "pro" version. If you look a little to the left of the "big button" there is a small download link which gives you the free version without the scam. Or just follow the link up there to download.com. Reminds me of good old AVG Free edition. eventually, I just started googling for AVG free instead of trying to find it's hidden location on grisoft's site.

Direct Links (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581553)

http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/ [foxitsoftware.com]

The whole reader is 2.2mb, Adobe's is more than 10 times that and foxit still has the same functionality!

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

rustalot42684 (1055008) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581133)

Adobe ain't too happy with Apple right now, seeing as how there's no 64bit Carbon.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

Protonk (599901) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581147)

This [msdn.com] will probably help. the filenames are all for windows, but the idea is the same. Just go to "Show package contents" int he contextual menu to get to the folders he is talking about. Makes acrobat run much faster. I also prefer some of the features of acrobat.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

eMartin (210973) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581177)

Knowing Apple though, it will be great on OS X (wait, they already have Preview), it will suck on Windows, and it won't be available for other platforms.

What really should happen is that another developer should make a kick ass open source cross-platform PDF viewer (AND editor for annotations, cropping, combining, extracting, converting, etc).

Unfortunately though, there are already those alternatives out there, but they mostly suck worse than Acrobat/Reader.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581349)

Based on QT4, okular might fill that gap.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581237)

Apple relies on Quartz and other built CoreImages to do their PDF rendering. So it works very well under OSX. They'd have to port everything to Windows first. Then you'd end up with a 90 MB "Preview.exe".

See also iTunes and Quicktime in Windows.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1, Insightful)

mike260 (224212) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581277)

Plus it'd disregard all Windows conventions, and implement it's own jarringly out-of-place antialiasing. See Safari/Win32.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (3, Insightful)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581397)

It's not Apple's fault if Microsoft can't display fonts correctly.

*gets modded down by ignorant Windows users*

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (2, Funny)

FredThompson (183335) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581251)

"totally" is like, so bitchin' dude. I mean, like, peeps should go tubular and stop being so bogus 90s. Righteous call, bro. Gnarly. I mean, those cats are like...whatEVER!

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581289)

Yeah, but on the other hand, Adobe has done pretty well squeezing all of Quicktime's online streaming into Flash. Kinda funny how they trade off like that.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (5, Funny)

f1055man (951955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581373)

NOOOOO!!! please not another upgrade. It nags me three weeks before an upgrade. NO, I DONT WANT TO FUCKING UPGRADE!!! And three weeks after an upgrade. I ALREADY FUCKING UPGRADED IT!!! Then it resets all my file extension defaults and starts opening everything in Acrobat Reader 8 even though I've told it a million times to open with Acrobat Pro 5. Fucking piece of shit must die.

Note to Acrobat developers, if anyone asks what you do, lie. It could be me. I will fucking kill you and then skull fuck you. I will kill your fucking family and skull fuck them. I will kill your fucking pets and skull fuck them. I will burn your fucking house down and find a way to skull fuck that too. And no jury will convict, they'll wish they had gotten to you first.

Sorry. The first hundred pages of my shit list are devoted solely to Acrobat. Deep breaths, deep breaths

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581421)

Two more reasons why Adobe should get Apple to design the next version of Reader for them.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581601)

I will admit, though, that while Preview is great for small documents, it's not very well setup for long multi-page documents. Reader is better at navigating lengthy documents.

However, I have yet to try Preview out on Leopard, which may have very well become just as good at navigating epic PDFs.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581623)

I don't know... I'd say the opposite. I don't mind Adobe too much for short documents, but it gets REALLY slow when you go to longer ones. Preview takes it in stride.

Leopard added the one feature I wanted -- continuous scrolling. In Tiger if you zoomed in so you weren't displaying a full page at once you could only scroll to the bottom of the page, then you had to select the next page. In Leopard you can just keep scrolling on to the next page.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581439)

If you take out adobe, please do not forget to take out Real. Then my soul can be at peace.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (2, Funny)

graviplana (1160181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581577)

Now calm down everyone. Someone put a buffer between this guy and these companies before someone gets hurt!

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

Protonk (599901) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581445)

this is awesome. If I had mod points I'd use them to mod you up, even though I would be voiding my own post. "The first hundred pages of my shit list are devoted solely to Acrobat" LOL

Wait are you talking about Acrobat or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581479)

Firefox?

The "Firefox Update" page is virtually my home page these days with the number of vital updates I need to be made aware of...

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

PolarBearFire (1176791) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581491)

I wholeheartily second that emotion, Acrobat Reader and Quicktime are the two apps that I've pissed me off so consistently throughout the years. Even Microsoft's shitty Windows evolves and improves(?), why can't they?

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581635)

Thankfully, QuickTime (the app) is practically pointless on a Mac, since the whole fucking operating system can work with MOV files just fine. cheapo, 3rd party freeware can work with QT files just fine, as all they do is operating system calls. The only thing QuickTime "PRO" is good for, is that it's still my choice for encoding to H.264 MOVs. Unfortunately, for all you Windows users out there (which includes myself when I'm at work), we're FUCKED, because QuickTime Player is one of the only programs out there that you can play MOVs on. Apple should make a really really great version of QuickTime Player for windows, and just fucking burn QT Player for Mac, it's almost completely pointless now.

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (2, Funny)

jackbird (721605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581567)

I have no idea what you do between bouts of terrorizing and skullfucking Adobe personnel, but I've found PDFCreator and Foxit Reader to be excellent default PDF reading/writing apps for my purposes, while Acrobat Pro 5 quietly sits on my drive waiting for me to need to create a form every so often.

Acrobat or Reader? (2, Interesting)

tknd (979052) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581461)

I don't know about you but Adobe Reader 8 is quite a bit better than the previous versions (loads incredibly fast now).

Re:PDF is nice, but Acrobat ain't (3, Informative)

7Prime (871679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581581)

Mac OS Preview isn't a PDF reader... Mac OS X is! Preview is, like, about 20 lines of code, considering that the entire PDF format is built into Core Image... or should I say: Core Image is built completely around PDF.

+5 for Adobe
+1 for Apple
-5 for Microsoft
-10 for Amazon (sorry Kindle, you're fucked)

Great (-1, Troll)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581075)

So, now the "not" so "portable document format" gains further acceptance. I'll grant that it has it's uses but until the full version of Adobe is available for free, or even less expensive, to the masses, it seems to be not quite right. I'd also certainly rather have a format that is a lot less file size intensive. To all mail users...no, you can't keep all of those emails with pdf's in your inbox without going over your quota. Save the damn things and delete the emails.

Re:Great (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581169)

What does a format being standardized have to do with the applications that read and write them? Perhaps I'm not as sensitive to this, since it's really easy to generate PDFs from all applications on MacOS X, but I don't see why Adobe should release their software for free any more than I think Dreamweaver should be free in order for HTML to be a standard.

Re:Great (1)

pkulak (815640) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581223)

I guess PNG shouldn't be a standard either because you can't get Photoshop for free and IE screws up its transparency.

(No, I don't know if PNG actually is an ISO standard. If it isn't, pretty please don't ruin my analogy by pointing out facts.)

Re:Great (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581233)


but until the full version of Adobe is available for free, or even less expensive, to the masses, it seems to be not quite right


Why does the full version of Adobe need to be free? There's many free utilities that create PDFs, there's multiple free APIs to manipulate PDFs. There's plenty of free, open source readers. What is it about the full version of Acrobat that's so special?

Re:Great (2, Informative)

mike260 (224212) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581235)

[...] until the full version of Adobe is available for free, or even less expensive, to the masses, it seems to be not quite right.
The whole point of an open standard is that you're not locked into buying Acrobat (which I assume is what you meant by 'Adobe'). There are a bajillion and one PDF creators out there, many of them free. OS X can print to PDFs out-of-the-box.

Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
The puppy typed 'Adobe' at the moment you were trying to type 'Acrobat'?

Re:Great (0, Flamebait)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581465)

"The whole point of an open standard is that you're not locked into buying Acrobat (which I assume is what you meant by 'Adobe'). There are a bajillion and one PDF creators out there, many of them free. OS X can print to PDFs out-of-the-box."

Of course, Acrobat is what I meant when I said Adobe. Looking from a Windows centric support view I guess I assumed that was a given. From the same Windows centric support view... duh?, what's OS X? While you and I, and many others know there are other options, your typical Windows user (read majority) have no clue that you can even create a pdf in anything other than Adobe (Acrobat).

"The puppy typed 'Adobe' at the moment you were trying to type 'Acrobat'?"

The puppy says, "Fruck roo, go rinux". :)

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581595)

Intellectually bankrupt loser.

Re:Great (4, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581271)

o, now the "not" so "portable document format" gains further acceptance.

Umm, what isn't portable about PDFs?

I'll grant that it has it's uses but until the full version of Adobe is available for free, or even less expensive, to the masses, it seems to be not quite right.

First, I assume you're talking about Adobe Acrobat, since Adobe is a company, not a product. The whole point of standards is that they do not rely upon any given implementation and anyone and everyone can make their own. Don't like Adobe's free product, get someone else's. I have both free and payware PDF tools from both Adobe and other companies. Do you want better free PDF tools, go ahead and code them, the standard is right there and the licensing to the patents is free. Heck there's even good set of GPL PDF libraries and code from the XPDF project.

I'd also certainly rather have a format that is a lot less file size intensive.

You can make pretty small PDFs, depending upon what you put in them. Or, if you want smaller file sizes and are willing to sacrifice features, use postscript, it's been a standard for a long time.

To all mail users...no, you can't keep all of those emails with pdf's in your inbox without going over your quota.

Mail quotas are so mid 90s. Disk space is cheap and so long as you're not using Exchange (which insists on keeping sometimes hundreds of versions of the same file around, since it is too stupid to just keep one copy for everyone) it is not like attachments are much of an issue anymore.

Re:Great (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581391)

"Umm, what isn't portable about PDFs?"

Uh, large file size?

"First, I assume you're talking about Adobe Acrobat, since Adobe is a company, not a product. The whole point of standards is that they do not rely upon any given implementation and anyone and everyone can make their own. Don't like Adobe's free product, get someone else's. I have both free and payware PDF tools from both Adobe and other companies. Do you want better free PDF tools, go ahead and code them, the standard is right there and the licensing to the patents is free. Heck there's even good set of GPL PDF libraries and code from the XPDF project.

You can make pretty small PDFs, depending upon what you put in them. Or, if you want smaller file sizes and are willing to sacrifice features, use postscript, it's been a standard for a long time."

I guess I should been more specific. While there are other options than Adobe and you can make pretty small pdf files, most Windows users are ignorant of those options. And, Adobe's free product is a viewer. It does not give you the ability to create. Have you ever been to a local, state, or government site that has documents available in pdf? Why should a two page text file be two megabytes? Why should a fifty page legal brief be fifteen megabytes? Portable my ass unless you are one of the tech savvy.

"Mail quotas are so mid 90s. Disk space is cheap and so long as you're not using Exchange (which insists on keeping sometimes hundreds of versions of the same file around, since it is too stupid to just keep one copy for everyone) it is not like attachments are much of an issue anymore."

Hmm... Work much in very large organizations? Mail quotas are a fact. And while we're at it, Exchange allows users on the same mail store to have a single instance of an attachment available to all users who received the email until the last user deletes the email.

Re:Great (1)

Helios1182 (629010) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581463)

The ignorance of Windows users isn't a reason to fight PDF, it is a reason to educate the users and force Microsoft to support a format that others OSes have for years.

Re:Great (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581475)

"The ignorance of Windows users isn't a reason to fight PDF, it is a reason to educate the users and force Microsoft to support a format that others OSes have for years."

I can't argue that point in any way, shape, or form. However, if we could force education upon the users they wouldn't use MS in first place. I have no desire to fight PDF, only the desire for PDF creators to get a clue.

Re:Great (1)

Gideon Fubar (833343) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581537)

These problems aren't native to the format. A 2 page text document can easily be 2meg if it's scanned at 600dpi and no OCR is applied.this particular problem relates only to the knowledge of the user, and in that regard i don't think anyone can solve all the problems. While we're at it, you already knew this.

btw, your point on Acrobat Pro is moot, since there have been free PDF authoring tools available for years now, and publicly available export classes and functions for a variety of languages.. I could write a 3 line app that outputs passable (sparse, perhaps, but passable) PDFs. That's the benefit of having an open standard, anyone can implement a product using it.

Re:Great (4, Informative)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581579)

I have full ebooks with 200+ pages and lots of photographs and diagrams. 400-600K
That seems pretty decent.

Re:Great (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581501)

Umm, what isn't portable about PDFs?

I don't know what the grandparent meant, but I personally have had no luck getting tabular data back out of PDF documents after trying several of the tools out there. So, while PDF is portable in the "read it anyplace" sense, it's not very portable in the "doing something programatically with the contents" sense :-(

In case we forget. (5, Insightful)

Protonk (599901) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581087)

Another standard from our friends the ISO [wikipedia.org] . I'm glad the .pdf is now a documented standard, but this doesn't really mean TOO much in the document world. It might convince a few pointy-haired bosses that .pdf is MUCH better than develpoing some internal document handling protocol due to the imposing and convincing sound the standard makes when spoken, but I know that most of the ISO standardization process is in name only.

Let's not get started about process and quality management and the yellow sticky of approval that is ISO-9000.

Re:In case we forget. (3, Funny)

gotonull (1054170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581297)

What, 9000?

Go Figure on France (2, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581095)

But then again, I know many French people, and they're opposed to proprietary software becoming an ISO standard, especially with patent and copyright as it stands now here in the US.

Re:Go Figure on France (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581303)

I know many French people, and they're opposed to proprietary software becoming an ISO standard, especially with patent and copyright as it stands now here in the US.

What? This is about the PDF format becoming a standard not about any proprietary software. If we called it PDF ala XPDF the free and open source PDF reader, would the French be more in support of it? As for copyright and patent, there is a free as in beer license that provides patent protection for anyone making PDF tools that adhere to the standard.

Adobe (3, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581109)

Great, now just make a reader that doesn't slow my system down to a crawl while opening a 100K document.

Re:Adobe (1)

RobinH (124750) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581157)

Great, now just make a reader that doesn't slow my system down to a crawl while opening a 100K document.

Do you think it would open any faster if the same document was compressed down to 10K?

I think the point you're trying to make is that the reader's footprint is too large.

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581209)

I don't see him comparing document sizes or anything like - he literally complained that the reader slows down his system.

Re:Adobe (1)

aerthling (796790) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581187)

Try Foxit Reader [foxitsoftware.com] . It's small and quite fast.

Re:Adobe (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581309)

I've always found it more convenient to get it from download.com [download.com] .

Re:Adobe (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581195)

This means you need a new system...On both Winders and Linux side I don't even have this many problems even when opening a 30+MB PDF

Re:Adobe (2, Informative)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581305)

Already done. Evince [wikipedia.org] and KPDF [wikipedia.org] are both great pdf readers. Okular [wikipedia.org] seems pretty nice too.

Re:Adobe (5, Informative)

PenGun (794213) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581307)

Xpdf opens a 114M file in under 2 secs and a 25M one is pretty well instantaneous. Some kind of windose problem no doubt.

Re:Adobe (1)

palmem (845119) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581533)

Here goes:
http://kpdf.kde.org/ [kde.org]

Re:Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581569)

I use Foxit pdf and is free, small, fast, and works well most of the time ( www.foxitsoftware.com ) . No, I am not affiliated in any way with the company. As many others here, I am just tired of the piece of bloatware that Acrobat Reader is.

Re:Adobe (5, Informative)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581613)

Great, now just make a reader that doesn't slow my system down to a crawl while opening a 100K document.


The whole point of standardization is that it doesn't matter what Adobe does. Anybody can impliment the standard without too much trouble. Though, in practice, it was a DeFacto standard anyway, and there is already a ton of software that supports PDF. I haven't used Adobe's PDF reader in years.

xpdf, kpdf, Preview.app, Foxit Reader, etc. all work and between them probably support damn near any platform you would want to use. I use Foxit on my Windows machines, and I find it to be very convenient software which is fast, light, and mostly stays out of my way.

Re:Adobe (1)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581617)

SumatraPDF [kowalczyk.info] for Windows is really lightweight.

That is pretty sensitive.... (5, Funny)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581113)

I dunno much, but ISO 32000 ought to be able to record photos in the very darkest of dark places.
It's too bad they'll be saved as PDFs, I prefer to shoot RAW.

Re:That is pretty sensitive.... (1)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581229)

It could, but it would be as dark as the very darkest of dark places... (are you by any chance talking about red light districts?)

Re:That is pretty sensitive.... (1)

AEton (654737) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581407)

You can do a little bit better with a D3.

an adobe standard (1)

h2k1 (661151) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581151)

looks like that in january they were starting to do this, acording to an article in computerworld.
they said it would took from one to three years, so it looks like it was an easy decision.
they also say that adobe has had ISO standards for pdf a long time now, and suggests that it could have something to do with file-type standardization.
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9009366/ [computerworld.com]

Abstaining WITH Comments (5, Funny)

CranberryKing (776846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581255)

Russia:

"After long internal deliberation, we have arrived at an official position. We don't give a shit."

Ad cash cow (1)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581269)

Is that with or without the new PDF ad scheme? I wonder how many other ISO standards have a clickable ad in the document as part of it's specifications. Is that a coincidence or what? Less than a month after they reveal the ad specs they are an ISO standard! What a racket!

gn4a (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581301)

durVing which I How is the GNAA

PDF Tainted by Shitty Adobe Reader (5, Insightful)

ComputerPhreak (1057874) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581337)

It's sad that PDF, which seems like a pretty good format to me, has earned such a poor reputation. It has nothing to do with the format, rather, it has everything to do with the shitty software Adobe has put out to read PDFs. Sure, recent versions of Reader have improved loading time, and there are alternative packages available for reading, but the precedent was set around the time Reader 6 or 7 came out, as PDF usage was exploding. I grimmace everytime I see a link to a PDF on my Windows machine or on a Solaris workstation. Both have Reader installed, and it is a truly shitty piece of software: the load time is far too long (even with the latest improvements), it has embedded ads, the interface doesn't match the platform's Look & Feel well... the list goes on. Adobe could do a lot to spur the popularity of PDF by releasing a really high quality reader... but the damage may have already been too great.

Re:PDF Tainted by Shitty Adobe Reader (4, Informative)

Arcturax (454188) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581559)

Then get Foxit instead.

Bad Number (3, Funny)

shemnon (77367) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581359)

Number could have been better. Should have been ISO 32768. And the OSS implementations could have been called 32Kib. So close, yet so far.

what about linux? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581375)

last i heard it's still for fags.

This FP for GnAA? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21581453)

I don't want to No matter how then disappeared of BSD/O;S. A 7here are only

Cool! (1)

Nybble's Byte (321886) | more than 6 years ago | (#21581517)

But I guess that means it's curtains (Windows, get it?) for Microsoft's PDF killer, XPS. Kill Google [slashdot.org] ? Backatcha, Steve-o!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...