Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat

Subject: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
From: Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 08:04:00 -0600

However, you've lost some extensibility and audience by not
converting to HTML. To what extent you've lost it depends upon the
content and purpose of your documents, but the fact remains that
far more Web users use Netscape than they do Acrobat Reader.

That doesn't make much sense. It's rather like saying you've lost audience
because you've put your graphics in a format that can only be read by a
helper application.

Adobe's reader is freely available and easily installed. If it's a concern,
just drop a link to Adobe's download page on your page (almost everyone who
posts .PDF files does this). Netscape and Acrobat aren't mutually
exclusive. Most browsers (including Netscape) will use Acrobat as a helper
application, with no more effort than any other helper application.

Adobe even has a plug-in for Netscape that will read Acrobat files one page
at a time off a web server. And Netscape has an agreement to build Acrobat
technology into Netscape. (In fact, now that Netscape and MS are extending
HTML in mutually exclusive directions, I wonder if sometime in the future
PDF might not not replace HTML as the lingua franca of the web.)

There are some legitimate objections that can be made to Acrobat. Loss of
audience, however, is not one of them.

Have fun,
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 124

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.

Previous by Author: Re: Certification: opposing views
Next by Author: Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Previous by Thread: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Next by Thread: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads