On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:37 pm, bratt wrote:
If anything deserves boycotting its
PDF files.
PDF is antiquated, slow, and totally unsuitable for large volume
publication use. I had to scan s-l-o-w-l-y through hundreds of pages to
find
information because there is no way to relate the index
that price
Ed
- Original Message -
From: paul van den bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] defending pdfs
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:37 pm, bratt wrote:
If anything deserves boycotting its
PDF files.
PDF
@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [biofuel] defending pdfs
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:37 pm, bratt wrote:
If anything deserves boycotting its
PDF files.
PDF is antiquated, slow, and totally unsuitable for large volume
publication use. I had to scan s-l-o-w-l-y through hundreds of pages to
find
information
On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 01:04, you wrote:
Paul:
I thought the P would stand for Pitiful or Pathetic
The material I was working with (or trying to) were Government Acts,
running over 300 pages each. Naturally, Government Acts of Law are indexed
according to the sections of the Act, not pages.
-
From: paul van den bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 12:50 AM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] defending pdfs
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 04:37 pm, bratt wrote:
If anything deserves boycotting its
PDF files.
PDF is antiquated, slow, and totally
is actually like a roll of toilet tissue which unwinds like a
scroll across the computer screen.
Ed
- Original Message -
From: paul van den bergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] defending pdfs
sounds like the right tool
