RE: PDF to RTF extraction

Subject: RE: PDF to RTF extraction
From: "Balchunas, John" <JBalchunas -at- orgtek -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:04:18 -0500


Very good points. I was originally very opposed to the idea of sending the
source files, but the points your making are valid.

My department is trying to avoid setting a precedent for distributing the
source files outside of the department. We are afraid that by sending the
source files to a few people, we'll be hounded by marketing and other
departments for source files (using the excuse, "Well, you sent source files
to so and so...").

By sending them PDFs, we're able to retain control of the source files.
We're in the process of placing a lot of our package inserts, labeling, and
manuals on a company intranet as PDFs. It would save us the trouble of
accommodating such requests if national companies could eventually pull the
PDF off the intranet and do what they want with it. As Sanjay mentioned,
the national companies would be making changes at their own risk, not ours.
The onus would also be on them to maintain the manual they created.

Are my concerns unreasonable?

Any more thoughts very appreciated.


John Balchunas

-----Original Message-----
From: Brierley, Sean [mailto:Sean -at- Quodata -dot- Com]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:47 AM
Subject: RE: PDF to RTF extraction (Anybody have any experience with
Iceni 's G emini?)

That's very nice but:

1) Either editing the manual is permitted
2) Or editing the manual is not permitted

If 1), then distribute the source files, don't make people jump through PDF
editing hoops. To do the latter is ridiculous, who are you fooling? To do
the latter is a waste of company resources, and deliberately so.

If 2) then distribute the PDF with instructions that none may edit it.


sean -at- quodata -dot- com

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjay Srikonda [SMTP:sanjay -dot- srikonda -at- kiodex -dot- com]
The reasoning behind NOT distributing the actual source is that the
company can then say that the manual being produced IS the official
anything used ONLY internally and changed by staff via PDF---->RTF
conversion is allowable but only at the other division's risk.
Plus, it's
also up to them (the other division) to maintain an up-to-date
manual that
they've customized from the PDFs to RTF via their conversion.
it's just not very easy to argue that only one version of a manual
exist if you've got a manager over you in another department in a
separated location saying they'd like to customize the manual for
their own


Develop HTML-Based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver 4 ($100 STC Discount)
**New Dates!!** San Francisco (Apr 16-17), San Jose (Mar 29-30) or 800-646-9989.

IPCC 01, the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference,
October 24-27, 2001 at historic La Fonda in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Previous by Author: PDF to RTF extraction (Anybody have any experience with Iceni's G emini?)
Next by Author: RE: PDF to RTF extraction (Short Summary/Adobe announces Acrobat 5.0)
Previous by Thread: RE: Managing the multitudes (workflow management)
Next by Thread: Designing Frame templates

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads