On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:55:06 -0400 (EDT), Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Glenn McCorkle wrote: >> Is 'this' EXACTLY what Joerg intended for me to see? >> http://www.angelfire.com/id/glenndoom/test-pdf.gif >> It 'is' what I saw when I decoded test.pdf > Glenn, you're falling back into the mindset of pdf > as a graphics format. It simply isn't. > Portable DOCUMENT format is a method whereby the > PRINTED document is the whole point of the thing. > The renderings on the computer screen are merely > previews or approximations of what the finished product > will actually look like. >> Since no 2 PDF viewer programs are "exactly" the same.... >> PDFs will be displayed differently by each one being used. >> (just as HTML files are displayed differently by each browser) > As an "interpreted" language, pdf will still have > *some* minor variations from system to system, yes, > but you'll never get the wild variations of html > browsers. > Do this as an experiement. Print out western.pdf > from whatever different tools you have that can do so. > (I used Acroreader 4.0 and xpdf-0.91-1.6x) > The resulting documents aren't "identical" but they > are close enough that you have to look twice to see > the differences. You have just proven my point. The contention which was made by Bastiaan was...... >> In this case I can be absolutely sure >> that my recipient can view or print them exactly the way I intended to. The key words are... "absolutly sure" and "view or print them exactly the way I intended" My point is that they are not "exactly" the way as intended. (CLOSE perhaps.... but not EXACT)
