-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Georg Vollnhals schrieb: > Christian Mayer schrieb: > >> ... >> >> Generally bad is totally wrong. It is generally good... ;) >> > > But what Christian tells in a very absolute way does *not* match my > experiences.
I hope you noticed my ;) there... :) > 1. Acrobat Reader (7.0) is sometimes *very* slow when you have a > document of several pages Just because one program causes trouble doesn't mean that the file format is bad... At least with Acrobat Reader 6.0 I can't remember any problems with big documents (including formulas, tables and graphics) > 2. People wanted to *edit* the documents for their own use as they use > them for *serious work* and not just for fun. If you want an format that you can edit then PDF isn't suited at all. One of the strengths of PDF is that the layout is preserved (the total opposite is Microsoft Word: there it can be enough to change the printer to destroy the layout...) > 3. If you use a program to *search* through several directories of you > HD and display the results so that you just click the file-names to > display the content it is *much* faster with a browser than Acrobat > Reader. (WanyWord) There are free desktop search engines that can do the same with PDFs > 4. You can create your own table of contents with links to all *.htm/l > documents of a directory with ie.( DIR2HTML 1.1.x) There's no reason why you can't create a TOC with links to PDFs > 5. If you have different versions of the same document you can easily > compare it with (TextDiff) (although the formatting commands are > displayed you can see where the changes are and how it has been changed) > (All free programs for Win32) That's a better point. But you can export the Text from an PDF (e.g. with Acrobat Reader) and compare those files. > Ok, one can see that there are arguments for either Acrobat Reader and > HTM/L files. One has to make a decision. > I just wanted to add the *very unexpected* results of a practical > "experiment". You allways should take the best format for the job. If it has to be editable then PDF isn't a good choice (and also HTML isn't the best). RTF would be a good candidate. And the best could be the new OpenOffice file format. For a tutorial I think end user editability isn't a necessary goal (a good, consistent and readable layout is far more important). So PDF and HTML are well suited. The whole point of my last mail boils down to the first of this. You can't tell other people your opinion and claim that they are facts (and hope they'll believe it). Georg, your mail is much better as you say *why* you feel that way (and I can see your points although I'm not allways sharing them) > Anyway, *.htm/l or *.pdf, the more tutorials, documents and > helping-files we'll get, the better it is. > Thank you all who are contributing. That's definitely true. And I claim that this is fact ;) CU, Christian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFDUSLClhWtxOxWNFcRAtCXAKC7p7rNo4AsIDIOwmDpcoK/v3na9wCglHZi I9zrO5tHLr154CBJKAaHyZ4= =q5QD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Flightgear-users mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-users 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
