Re: acrobat schmacrobat

Subject: Re: acrobat schmacrobat
From: Tracy Boyington <trlyboyi -at- GENESIS -dot- ODVTE -dot- STATE -dot- OK -dot- US>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 08:02:58 +0000

Scot wrote:
> I'll agree with the original poster; acrobat really pisses me off in
> relation to the web, it is not a structured document format like HTML which
> allows dynamic formatting of the page *at the viewers end* to suit the
> viewers particular circumstance. Rather its a page display program, or to to
> use the term, a 'remote page printing' product (only if you have a
> postscript printer).

And why does this piss you off? It seems like a win-win situation to
me. If I want viewers to be able to control dynamic formatting to
suit their circumstances, I create an HTML doc and put it on the web.
If I want users to be able to view and print docs exactly as I
produced them, graphic lines and colors included, I create a PDF doc
and let them download it. What pisses you off about that? As long as
people use the right format for the right situation, it works

Tracy Boyington
Technical Communication Specialist
Oklahoma Department of Vocational & Technical Education
Stillwater, Oklahoma

I never express opinions, but if one slips out, it belongs
to me and not ODVTE.

"I think I did pretty well, considering I started out
with nothing but a bunch of blank paper."
-- Steve Martin

Previous by Author: Even more great software prices
Next by Author: Simplified English
Previous by Thread: acrobat schmacrobat
Next by Thread: Does "Anal Retentive" have a hyphen?

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads