Hi, Sorry for another tree of answers, but the others seemed a bit "fuzzy" to me...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:08:50 +0800 (CST) Zhang Weiwu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Because I always save two copies of every of my document, one in original > format (eg. odt) and another in printable format for my colleagues in case > they don't have the Linux fonts and software. Here comes the question should > I keep a PS copy or PDF copy. Note that PS is an interpreted language. PDF is a pure document format, no "program flow" involved there. You can do pretty funny things using Postscript you won't ever be able to do with PDF. I think Postscript even has a Random Generator. So if you do serious Postscript programming, PDF isn't an option ;-) PDF can be thought as the final result of a computation, Postscript describes the computation itself. > I think PDF copy is absolutely the prefered format because: > * easier to find acrobat reader; Hm. Let's turn this into: On most computers you'll find a PDF reader today. > * can be 'Tagged', especially used with OOo; Hm, produced by OOo, but "used"?!? Can be something to think of when it comes to reading on PDAs. > * possibility to 'copy and paste', though format will be lost; Not impossible with Postscript - doesn't have Gnome's new doc viewer have such a feature? Or something on KDE? Not sure, though... > * not to take other people by surprise with unfamiliar PS extension; But you still have the PDF version that _may_ prevent you from opening the PDFs on older Acrobat Readers when chosing a too high level. > * different quanlity: I can save PDF in very high quanlity that I was told > "can be taken to press house" No difference to postscript here - besides the new layers feature > * easy to convert to PS format when needed. This is true the other way, too. > Here comes the question: if the above all stands true, why do I ever need PS > format at all? There might be some reasons to keep this format still > existing. Perhaps in other areas, other then office work. Because that's what your printer interpretes? Or its network server thingy? > So the conclusion: for typical office workers, we can forget PS format. Except for piping it to the printer, yes. > Now welcome for suggestions. PDF is fine. Hm, and if you want something very future-proof, keep a plain text copy. This isn't a joke, let's discuss this in 30 years or so... > P.S. another quesiton I happen wish to have an answer: in one case, I have > to keep PS format because, I can print booklet (brochure) in OOO2 right the > way I expected, but if I carry this brochure to my colleague, and he doesn't > have openoffice, then I try to export to PDF format, and found there is no > 'brochure' option in exporting,[..... emerge pdftk && read about it on http://www.accesspdf.com, or check out the Multivalent Tools (google will tell you the address). > .......] also there is no 'brochure' option in > Acrobat Reader printing dialogue box, so it's clear if I export to PDF > format I will never be able to print it in brochure style on a normal PC, so > I have to print to PS file and carry it. But so far this is the only case I > think I need PS format. If I only exported PDF format, can I still print a > brochure? The difficulty in printing brochure is you have to make correct > page order. Of course. You can create a new PDF with above mentioned tools that has pages from the other PDF layouted in a certain way in the new PDF. -hwh -- [email protected] mailing list
