On Wednesday 09 March 2011 23:15:01 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > On Wednesday 09 March 2011 22:18:53 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> "Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message > >> news:[email protected]... > >> > >> > On Wednesday 09 March 2011 13:30:27 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > >> >> But why is it that academic authors have a chronic inability to > >> >> release > >> >> any > >> >> form of text without first cramming it into a goddamn PDF of all > >> >> things? > >> >> This is one example of why I despise Adobe's predominance: PDF is > >> >> fucking useless for anything but printing, and no one seems to know > >> >> it. > >> >> Isn't it about time the ivory tower learned about Mosaic? The web is > >> >> more than a PDF-distribution tool...Really! It is! Welcome to the > >> >> mid-90's. Sheesh. > >> > > >> > And what format would you _want_ it in? PDF is _way_ better than > >> > having a > >> > file > >> > for any particular word processor. What else would you pick? HTML? > >> > Yuck. > >> > How > >> > would _that_ be any better than a PDF? These are _papers_ after all, > >> > not > >> > some > >> > web article. They're either written up in a word processor or with > >> > latex. > >> > Distributing them as PDFs makes perfect sense. > >> > >> They're text. With minor formatting. That alone makes html better. Html > >> is > >> lousy for a lot of things, but formatted text is the one thing it's > >> always > >> been perfectly good at. And frankly I think I'd *rather* go with pretty > >> much any word processing format if the only other option was pdf. > > > > I'm afraid that I don't understand at all. The only time that I would > > consider > > html better than a pdf is if the pdf isn't searchable (and most papers > > _are_ > > searchable). And I _definitely_ don't like dealing with whatever word > > processor > > format someone happens to be using. PDF is nice and universal. I don't > > have to > > worry about whether I have the appropriate fonts or if I even have a > > program > > which can read their word processor format of choice. I don't really have > > any > > gripes with PDF at all. > > PDF: *Complete* inability to adapt appropriately to the viewing device, > *completely* useless page breaks and associated top/bottom page margins in > places that have absolutely *no* use for them, no flowing layout, frequent > horizontal scrolling, poor (if any) linking, inability for the reader to > choose the fonts/etc that *they* find readable. Oh, and ever tried reading > one of those pdf's that use a multi-column layout? All of this together > makes PDF the #1 worst document format for viewing on a PC. All for what? > Increased accuracy the *few* times it ever gets printed? Outside of > print-shops, pdf needs to die a horrible death.
LOL. It's _supposed_ to have a fixed look. That's part of what's so wonderful about it. You _know_ that it will look right every time. I think that it's quite clear that we're never going to see eye-to-eye on this one. - Jonathan M Davis
