PDFdev is a service provided by PDFzone.com | http://www.pdfzone.com _____________________________________________________________
>At 10:14 AM -0700 10/14/03, Duff Johnson wrote: >> > The minus is simply the fact that having two different places >> >for the same data in a document format means that one can never know >> >which is the current/valid set. This is one of (but certainly not >>>the only reason) why the PDF/A committee forbid /Info in their >>>documents. >> >>... but if the info is sync-ed each time the file is saved... then >>each set is equivalent... no? > > You are assuming that EVERY PDF consumer in the workflow >supports that syncing. As soon as one of the components updates >EITHER of the parts but doesn't update the other - how does the next >component know which one is the correct one and which way to sync?? Yeah... that is an issue. Maybe a clever change-log... but that gets hairy too. Ugh. Maybe it boils down to the idea that earlier versions of Acrobat cannot (or should not be able to) Save a file created using a later spec. I hae cursed A6 for this from time to time... but... Brr... can't believe I'm thinking what I'm thinking! >>One could also make the argument the other way. Discarding /Info >>would cause many current applications to break - HARD. > > True. But XMP has already been in PDF for two years now, >and it will be another 2 years (I would speculate based on 3->4->5->6 >each being 24 months long cycles) before this change that Lori is >asking about. Yes, but you are suggesting KILLING OFF /Info. Apostate! > I think that if developers have two YEARS to update, we >should be OK...except of course for legacy apps, but at what point do >we pull away?!?! The bigger PDF gets, the slower it can change. At this point, it's a behemoth (or a colossus - take your pick) and so EXTREME caution is advised. After all, Adobe can't just worry about pre-press anymore! THOSE people can be pushed around, forced to upgrade, no problem! GE, on the other hand... not so easy. Adobe needs to keep Uncle Scam happy, they would like for PDF to be venerated as core document technology in the world's biggest organizations. They don't want it to become even THINKABLE to move away from PDF - and it's not like others aren't trying to make that happen. Sure, ossification is bad... from the developer point of view. From the CFO/CIO perspective, getting yanked into multi-zillion dollar expenditures on new document management software because Adobe agrees with Leonard that it's time to retire /Info would not get a warm & fuzzy reception, I suspect. >>Syncing might legitimately be seen as the right way to maintain a >>sufficient degree of backwards-compatibility. Otherwise, files >>saved with A7 would simply start to disappear off the radar of >>pre-A7 applications. That would be a GIANT no-no. > > We already have this more significantly today with PDF >1.5/Acro6 and the new "compressed objects" which is COMPLETELY >incompatible with older PDF consumers. Removing the /Info just means >that some metadata is lost "Just?" "JUST!!" It would mean that the PDFs would effectively cease to exist at all for applications that rely on /Info to find files or display search results. Baaaad News! >, instead of the entire document contents >(as is the case with commpressed objects). Indeed. I would like to see Adobe spend more energy interrogating / advising the deployer (as opposed to strictly developer, amongst whom I cannot truly consider myself) community about proposed changes BEFORE they occur. I take the query from Lori as a good sign in this regard. Not that I'm coming up with any good answers to the vital questions you are raising, Leonard. Duff Johnson Document Solutions, Inc. www.document-solutions.com To change your subscription: http://www.pdfzone.com/discussions/lists-pdfdev.html
