Walter Bright Wrote: > On 3/9/2011 10:18 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > 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 used to use HTML for presentations. Frankly, it was terrible. The text was > rendered badly, especially when blown up on a screen. I could never get it to > look right. I couldn't email the presentation to anyone without sending a wad > of > other files along with it. > > I switched to pdf presentations, and they worked great and looked great. The > pdf > viewers would render text that looked great blown up. The pdf was all in one > file, meaning I could email it to someone and they could look at it directly > from their mail program. I would bring backups on a thumb drive so in case my > laptop was busted/stolen by the TSA, I could run my presentation on anyone's > computer. > > I do not understand why HTML engines do such an ugly job rendering text, > while > PDF's on the same machine do a great job. This is true on Windows as well as > Ubuntu.
This can't be true! Walter defending inferior semi-standard formats. PDF doesn't even have as nice transition effects as powerpoint or new jQuery using presentations stored in the cloud services. Your thumb drives break anyway once a year so I'm in favor of a subscription model for the cloud. Stardard HTML + CSS + JavaScript or Flash works for everyone. There's also Silverlight coming soon.
