Forums | MacLife

PDF PDF PDF

Say it with me...

PDF PDF PDF

iBubba wrote:

PDF PDF PDF

Say it with me...

PDF PDF PDF

PDF sucks for documents that need to be edited by others.
Sure, it can be done, but it is not a word processor format - and it was never intended to be one.

resedit wrote:

Wrong.
It was developed by OASIS.
OpenOffice.org decided that they will use it for their default format, it was not developed them.

Oops.

resedit wrote:

PDF sucks for documents that need to be edited by others.
Sure, it can be done, but it is not a word processor format - and it was never intended to be one.

It can mostly be done with Photoshop, if you ask me. I won't even try it with Acrobat.

Hey! OpenOffice.org is finished downloading! I'll get right back to you!

XYZ wrote:

Is it accurate to say you no longer think the guy is a "loony toon"?

No, I still think he's a loony toon. Even if ODF is 100 times better than Office files his little scheme will turn every state-run office across the state of Massachusetts on its ear and quite possibly bring the wheels of government there (which turn slowly enough as it is, I'm sure) to a grinding halt.

XYZ wrote:

Is it accurate to say you no longer support his removal?

He's removing himself. Why he's doing that is unclear to me. The article is not very specific about what's going on with his personal life.

If he's being stalked and harassed by Windows groupies or something, as the article seems to imply, I certainly do not support that kind of behavior. Is Bill Gates crank calling him at his house or what?

resedit wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

http://hostitwith.us/files/601/warning.gif

That's just an honest statement informing you that they don't have 100% compatibility - that someone opening the document in Word may not see the document as you intended it.

I know. I just thought it was funny because of the thousands of times I've gotten the same warning from Microsoft Word while exporting a file to some other format.

So I typed in one sentence and saved it as an OpenDocument Text (.odt) file and a Microsoft Word 2003 XML (.xml) file. Then I opened them both up in NotePad to see which one was more "open."

The ODT file has a ton of gobbledy-gook bullsmurf at the beginning of it before it ever gets to an XML tag. I fail to see what's so open about that. I must have missed the part in the W3C's XML recommendation that said, "Put a lot of crap in a header for your XML file that no one who opens it in a text editor will know anything about." Its text representation looks more like that of a Word (.doc) file to me than anything else. Not wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water, I decided to look up the Open Document Format specification and see if it allows for a file header of some sort. (It's available, ironically enough, as a PDF file here.) It doesn't say anything about such an undecipherable file header. This doesn't mean that the ODF is a bad thing. It just means that the default file format for OpenOffice.org is anything but ODF. Trying to open it in Firefox just asks you if you want to save it to disk or open it with OpenOffice.org, which is pretty obviously the only way you'll be able to open it. That's fine and all. In fact OpenOffice.org looks like a good enough program ... especially for free (so far ... I've had it for a whole 15 minutes).

The Microsoft Word 2003 XML file has no such gobbledygook at the beginning of it. In fact, it starts like this...

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>

which is what I would expect. I'd also expect, however, that Firefox could open a standalone XML file but it just claims that the file has no style information associated with it. Maybe Firefox just doesn't know how to render the Word XML DTD, which is included in the file.

Both programs (Firefox and IE) will display the document tree for the Microsoft XML file, which is what they usually do if they can't render it.

Then I added a table just for sport and saved the file as a DocBook XML file, which is also a specification developed by OASIS. I opened that in Notepad and holy smurf, that file is clean as a whistle!

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.1.2//EN" "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.1.2/docbookx.dtd">
<article lang="en-US">
<para>I'll just type a little stuff in here and see what happens.</para>
<informaltable frame="all">
<tgroup cols="8">
<colspec colnum="1" colname="c1"/>
<colspec colnum="2" colname="c2"/>
<colspec colnum="3" colname="c3"/>
<colspec colnum="4" colname="c4"/>
...

Obviously the file "docbookx.dtd" is probably huge, and Firefox evidently can't understand it yet. I would not be surprised if Firefox "learns" how to understand it soon, though.

In addition, Microsoft's idea of an XML file appears to specify the font, size, style, etc. of every damn paragraph just like their idea of an HTML file did, which just flies in the face of the W3C's recommendation that that information be contained in a Cascading Style Sheet (CSS). If they continue to refuse to jump on the CSS bandwagon I don't see how they can ever credibly be considered capable of designing an Open XML file format that will make anybody happy besides them.

Last edited by Duke Stratosphere (2006-01-03 4:13 pm)

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

He's removing himself.

That's inaccurate. He was taken out through intimidation, etc.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Why he's doing that is unclear to me.

Why is perfectly clear. What's not perfectly clear is the extent of Microsoft's involvement. To me, it looks like Romney is working as a proxy for MS, at least to some degree.

I think characterizing him as weak represents the personal attack fallacy. He obviously had no trouble doing his job prior to the intimidation. That means the intimidation is the problem, not him.

First he was a loony, and now he's weak.

Your use of the personal attack fallacy will continue to produce no results.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

XYZ wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

He's removing himself.

That's inaccurate. He was taken out through intimidation, etc.

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Why he's doing that is unclear to me.

Why is perfectly clear. What's not perfectly clear is the extent of Microsoft's involvement. To me, it looks like Romney is working as a proxy for MS, at least to some degree.

I have to agree with that, but we can't tell for sure if Romney is just really addicted to Microsoft Word or if Bill is paying him off or what. And Quinn is just doing his job, whether his decision is "right" or "wrong" (as if there's really a moral issue at stake here).

It kind of looks to me like the "intimidation" factor might have more to do with a persecution complex on Quinn's part as much as anything else. Just because the administration "launched an investigation into out-of-state trips taken by Quinn to speak at technology conferences over the past two years, following a report in the Boston Globe which questioned the appropriateness of such trips" doesn't hardly make him a "lightning rod with regard to any IT initiative," (especially since the administration found that he had done nothing wrong) does it?

I think that instead of resigning he should *snicker* man up and stay the open source course instead of being such a *heh* sissy little drama queen *chortle* and quitting his job.

It's very ironic you called him a drama queen.

Ant to think about it, if he was a drama queen, he wouldn't quit the job, now would he. Quitting the job means losing the stage.

XYZ wrote:

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

They're not mutually exclusive, you know. He's a weak loony bird.

So, you're once again changing your position. First you said he's a loony. Then, when I pressed you on it, you said he's not one. Now, you're back to the loony nonsense.

Why should anyone bother?

No, you just misremembered or something...

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

XYZ wrote:

Is it accurate to say you no longer think the guy is a "loony toon"?

No, I still think he's a loony toon. Even if ODF is 100 times better than Office files his little scheme will turn every state-run office across the state of Massachusetts on its ear and quite possibly bring the wheels of government there (which turn slowly enough as it is, I'm sure) to a grinding halt.

XYZ wrote:

Is it accurate to say you no longer support his removal?

He's removing himself. Why he's doing that is unclear to me. The article is not very specific about what's going on with his personal life.

If he's being stalked and harassed by Windows groupies or something, as the article seems to imply, I certainly do not support that kind of behavior. Is Bill Gates crank calling him at his house or what?

I did say that he doesn't deserve to be persecuted, intimidated or anything like that just for doing his job, though, even though I've yet to see any evidence that he's been persecuted or intimidated beyond his own claim that he's a "lightning rod."

resedit wrote:

iBubba wrote:

PDF PDF PDF

Say it with me...

PDF PDF PDF

PDF sucks for documents that need to be edited by others.
Sure, it can be done, but it is not a word processor format - and it was never intended to be one.

I have been rather steadfast in refusing to argue this with you, mainly because I am confident I know WTF I am talking about, since I deal with this type of smurf each and every day, have have done so for over 10 years...

With that said:

PDFs can have minor adjustments made, using a variety of applications to do so. MOST people using these forms in the government, however, do not make changes to said documents. Most likely, there is a "typesetting department" in the government, or some third party (say, a business form printer) makes adjustments as copy needs to be updated.

In other words: MOST of the people using these forms are just "filling in the blanks." Not every person using these forms are necessarily making form layout or field adjustments. SO the "others" you speak of are really the ones who are working with the "Masters" and would be using Word/whatever to make said changes, THEN publishing the PDF to the intranet for DL and use by the other 99% of the corporation... err, government.

For the primary function of these forms, namely "filling them out," PDF technology is more than sufficient.

Small KB footprint? Check
Security? Check
Standardized across platforms and OSes? Check
Ease of use? Check

Like I said, the list goes on and on.

Last edited by iBubba (2006-01-06 11:37 am)

Interesting that an investigation of a public official is termed an attack by political opposition.