On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 20:29, Lucian Branesculucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/12 Albert Cahalan acaha...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Lucian
Branesculucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/12 Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org:
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 13:28 +0100,
S Page writes:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Daniel Drakedsd at laptop.org wrote:
adding an interactivity component that would be impossible
to have when working with paper-based exercise books.
And impossible with PDFs.
No way. PDFs can be interactive in many ways.
First of all, a PDF
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 07:22 -0400, Albert Cahalan escribió:
Finally, you can put JavaScript in a PDF. I'm not sure if any of
the free software viewers can handle this yet. In theory you can
have all sorts of animations. It's kind of like flash.
Yes, and it's kind of like SVG, too.
And
Adobe apparently loves vectors.
JavaScript-in-PDF is mostly a joke and a big security risk. It's not
something to be relied upon.
Forms are about as much interaction as PDF get without becoming
dangerous or moot.
2009/8/12 Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org:
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 07:22
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 13:28 +0100, Lucian Branescu escribió:
Adobe apparently loves vectors.
And monopolies.
JavaScript-in-PDF is mostly a joke and a big security risk. It's not
something to be relied upon.
It might be useless, but I don't see why it should be more risky than
Javascript
2009/8/12 Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org:
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 13:28 +0100, Lucian Branescu escribió:
Adobe apparently loves vectors.
And monopolies.
That too :) But really, they're obsessed with vectors.
JavaScript-in-PDF is mostly a joke and a big security risk. It's not
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 15:16 +0100, Lucian Branescu escribió:
In any case, PDF is a good presentation format. Why make it
significantly more complex for small-to-none improvements to its main
purpose?
Agreed.
And, btw, as people are gradually loosing the habit of printing on
paper, document
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Bernie Innocentiber...@codewiz.org wrote:
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 15:16 +0100, Lucian Branescu escribió:
In any case, PDF is a good presentation format. Why make it
significantly more complex for small-to-none improvements to its main
purpose?
Agreed.
And,
Hi Albert,
On 12 Aug 2009, at 12:22, Albert Cahalan wrote:
S Page writes:
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Daniel Drakedsd at laptop.org
wrote:
adding an interactivity component that would be impossible
to have when working with paper-based exercise books.
And impossible with PDFs.
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 09:52 -0500, Rafael Enrique Ortiz Guerrero
escribió:
I think few people will care about PDF 10 years from now -- maybe
just 5 years from now. With or without Javascript ;-).
i wish i was so optimistic but in some parts of the world the time
frame for this change
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Lucian
Branesculucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/12 Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org:
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 13:28 +0100, Lucian Branescu escribió:
JavaScript-in-PDF is mostly a joke and a big security risk. It's not
something to be relied upon.
2009/8/12 Albert Cahalan acaha...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Lucian
Branesculucian.brane...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/12 Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org:
El Wed, 12-08-2009 a las 13:28 +0100, Lucian Branescu escribió:
JavaScript-in-PDF is mostly a joke and a big security
Hi,
some thoughts follow. Please keep in mind that these are just my
personal opinions and that not everybody at Sugar Labs share the same
idea of what SLs is or should be.
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 19:41, Daniel Draked...@laptop.org wrote:
Hi,
In response to the thread I started recently about
Hi Daniel.,
excellent post - skipping to the let's make it deployable part, I
have to say I agree with all you say. - Some comments below
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Daniel Draked...@laptop.org wrote:
Secondly, this just won't work for deployments in general. Deployments
are really
FWIW, It sounds like you both are pretty much in sync and are
providing two much needed voices. The challenge that you both are
clearly articulating is that of seemingly unlimited needs and limited
resources.
The only thing I would like to add is, Please note the tone of this
discussion with
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Daniel Draked...@laptop.org wrote:
Sugar currently doesn't even
have support for the library bundle technology which was adopted by
various sugar deployments, as it doesn't have a way of accessing the
index.html pages short of typing in the file path in Browse.
16 matches
Mail list logo
