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
perfectly.


==========================================================
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