Re: N:Vision CFL's

["Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms>]

> That state exists simply because Adobe
> worked hard for that to happen...

Actually, Adobe saw a need and developed
a means to fulfill it.  PDF does something
very well which HTML does only marginally
or, in most cases not at all.  It allows an
author to control the exact shape and layout
of a document such that it will appear the
same no matter which browser or OS views
it.

It also provides a means of "locking" a
document so that casual users cannot alter it.
This allows digitally signed PDF documents
to be used as contracts with the same force
as printed material signed in ink.

> It's the same sort of reason we're stuck
> with Windows...

You're not stuck with Windows.  Feel free to
use LINUX or Mac any time you like.  Note,
however, that when you want to create a
document that maintains its layout across
both of those platforms you'll probably need
to use PDF.

That's not because Adobe cornered the
market.  They simply did a better job than
anyone else so their method became the
standard.

> "In wide use" doesn't mean "excellent"
> of even "good" by default.

True, kindly show us what about PDF is
less than good quality.  General statements
that "in wide use doesn't mean good"
do not amount to a valid argument that
one particular widely used mthod is not.

> Adobe profits wildly from this since they
> happen to own the technology...

And?

> That's antithetical to the spirit of the web,
> at least in IMHO.

I suppose you don't use Google or Yahoo
either then.

> It's also not display device-independent,
> a major feature of the web that PDF's,
> at least IMHO, violate outrageously.

Examples, please.

> Perhaps you're blessed with perfect vision...
> Those who are not find PDFs far more
> troublesome than you do because they are
> typically NOT device independent but are
> designed for PRINTING on an 8.5 by 11"
> page.

That is not correct.  The PDF format allows
the author to select whatever page size s/he
likes.

I'm nearly blind in one eye and nearsighted
in the other.  One of the things I like about
PDF documents is that I can easily enlarge
text and images simulaneously so I can
read fine print.  Web browsers allow limited
text resizing, but images and other elements
usually don't flow with the text and often
obscure portions of it.

> That means pan and scan for a LOT of
> people.  There are tools to convert said
> PDF documents for use on the web, but
> many webmasters, it seems, are too lazy
> to look out for their sight-impaired brothers
> and sisters to bother to use it.

I use PDF for docs that benefit from it.  My
website is all HTML though.  Any product info
which I get in PDF is transferred to HTML as
text and images.  However, this is a tedious
process that lends itself to erros.  Having
"converted" thousands of pages from HTML
to PDF and vice versa, I can tell you that
it's not laziness that keeps most webmasters
from doing so.  It's the shear volume of work
involved that keeps most at bay.

We disagree on another point.  PDF is IMO
much better for those with impaired vision
than HTML.  Scaling pages up to view them
is a trivial task.  The need to pan inversely
proportionate to the size (in pixels) of one's
monitor.

> Then there are the security issues I
> mentioned to Jeff.

Any time you download anything, PDF, Doc,
HTML or whatever, you must concern yourself
with possible security issues.  That is why
we buy anti-virus software, spyware removers,
etc.  Can you show us that PDFs are inherently
more vulnerable to "bad things" than HTML?

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>