[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]


On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 11:08 PM, philidor11@snet.net wrote:

I agree that the internet is an effective way to provide information
to people who are looking for it, but also included is an encomium
to the PDF format.
That format is oversized and very awkward to use for any purpose
other than just reading.  Its only value is that authors can
lock it.  If possible, the first thing I do with a PDF format
is to reduce it to text, using the Text Tool in the Reader.
Unfortunately, that means sacrificing illustrations and spending
some time formatting what's left, but it's worth it.
Rich text is better, and most operating systems have word processing
apps that can accept at least older .doc formats.
Adobe has promised to improve the flexibility of the PDF clunker,
but until there are some results, avoiding use of the PDF format
is a service to readers.

I disagree. PDFs are the most reliable cross-platform file format, as many text formats have problems (different operating systems use different line breaks). And for ease of printing, they could hardly be better.

They also preserve formatting and fonts, which is important. Their images can be scaled to print resolution, which means that the images won't come out "pixely" (if the PDF is made correctly). For documents with print-resolution images embedded, the PDF format is the only thing going.

So I think PDFs are an ideal way to publish scientific papers.

John Conway - Palaeoartist, and Adobe Marketing Manager. :)

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." - Walt Whitman

Systematic ramblings: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/
Palaeoart: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/_palaeoart.html
Skeletals: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/_skeletals/