«

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:28:31 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

>>> PDF is the most suitable format for an organisation to present data to
>>> end users in. Do you disagree with this fact, or just being
>>> argumentative?
>>
> Strongly Agree [X]
>
> Readers available for pretty much all environments, maintains original
> formatting etc, plethora of PDF printers and other creators available,
> standard format, security options that can prevent editing etc.
>
> PDF is possibly the most widely available format, and free reading
> software is available for everyone (and included with most OSs, with
> the surprising (or not?) exception of Windows, where a free reader is
> available on almost any third-party CD.

I think the key expression here is "present data".

I would agree that for *presenting* a document, PDF files are the best
means to do so.

But for wordprocessing purposes... PDF is inappropriate.


Undeniably Sluttish

--
Free software on every PC on every desk.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:03:47 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

> It really doesn't have anything to offer over
> TIFF (for non-lossy) and JPEG (for lossy).

Yes - it does. It is patent free.


Undeniably Sluttish

--
Free software on every PC on every desk.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:29:49 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:

> But we're not talking about an intranet. We're talking about an
> organisation presenting data to end users.

Actually, we're talking about the WWW OR an intranet OR simple server/HDD
storage of documents - whether for archival purposes or otherwise.

For office documents that are to be communicated between people who use
different software on different platforms, it is much better that all
those office suites be able to accurately interpret the contents of the
file. To this end, ODF is not controlled by any one person or
organisation, and has been approved by an independant standards body as an
official standard that is fully documented and unencumbered.

PDF also is not controlled by any one person or organisation, has been
approved by an independant standards body as an official standard that is
fully documented and unencumbered.

All file formats native to Micro$oft's software are exclusively controlled
by Micro$oft, have not been approved by an *independant* standards body,
are not fully documented, and have patent restrictions that prevent
unlicensed use.

Now which of those are software developers more likely to use with
confidence?


Undeniably Sluttish

--
Free software on every PC on every desk.
people denounce us as seeking special rights."

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:51:42 +1300, Mr Undeniably Sluttish wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:01:45 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
>
>>>>>>>What does that obfuscated link point to?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not click on it and see?
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>> Suit yourself. Don't waste my time asking what it is, then, when
>>>> you're not capable of clicking on it.
>>>
>>>I'm not going to click on a URL that I don't at least have some initial
>>>idea where it's going to take me.
>>
>> Why? Concerned about the security of your computer system?
>
> No - of course not - I don't use Micro$oft sotware, and I keep my system
> up-to-date.
>
>
>> Think I may
>> have dropped a hardcore pr0n image in the middle of a discussion about
>> document standards?
>
> What is a "pr0n image"? And why should somebody think you might do that?
>
>
>> Seriously, I'm curious.
>
> I want to know where a link will take me before I click on it.
>
> Undeniably Sluttish

Do you really thoroughly research every single URL in its
entirety every time before you click on it? How can you
cope with the DNS entry changing at the instant prior to
your click?

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 11:21:18 +1300, Murray Symon wrote:

> Do you really thoroughly research every single URL in its
> entirety every time before you click on it?

No! Of course not. Who does!!?

But a URL that points at a website that *definitely* redirects it
somewhere else... No thanks!


Undeniably Sluttish

--
"I like the boys who do. I respect the boys who don't. I hate the boys who
say they do but then say they don't. But most of all, and I think this
is right, I like those who say they don't, but look like they really might."

On , , Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:55:11 +1300, Re: windows vista, Mr
Undeniably Sluttish <> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 00:03:57 +1300, Fred Dagg wrote:
>
>>>how do you edit PDF files and send them back to the original author?
>>>
>> And you feel that you should be editing documents downloaded from an
>> archival system?
>
>Please do not tell me what I feel.

Why do you think you should be editing documents downloaded from
an archival system?

On , , Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:56:11 +1300, Re: windows vista, Mr
Undeniably Sluttish <> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:43:42 +1300, Mutley wrote:
>
>>>how do you edit PDF files and send them back to the original author?
>>
>> There is software that will do it. Even Adobe PDF Writer can do it
>> but not easily
>
>Wouldn't it be much easier if everybody supported the Open Document
>format. That way *everybody* could easily edit those documents.

Then you end up with something as useless as WikiPedia. Anyone
can edit it to whatever political version they want to. There is
no authority.

Menoeceus wrote:
> On , , Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:56:11 +1300, Re: windows vista, Mr
> Undeniably Sluttish <> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:43:42 +1300, Mutley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>how do you edit PDF files and send them back to the original author?
>>>
>>>There is software that will do it. Even Adobe PDF Writer can do it
>>>but not easily
>>
>>Wouldn't it be much easier if everybody supported the Open Document
>>format. That way *everybody* could easily edit those documents.
>
>
> Then you end up with something as useless as WikiPedia. Anyone
> can edit it to whatever political version they want to. There is
> no authority.

Yep, so useless that it got 2.5 billion page views last month, and page
views double every four months.

Wikipedia is easily editable, as you say, but there is a very public
history of edits to every article, so in that respect it is auditable by
anybody. As Adam Curry discovered, to his embarrassment.

Wikipedia is lot more authoritative than most other sources on the
internet, and is a resource I find I'm using more as time passes (and as
google becomes less useful).