Re: PDF vs. HTML

Subject: Re: PDF vs. HTML
From: Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 16:31:00 -0600

Both Arlen and I agree that PDF and HTML have their place.
We disagree over specifics and on where we place our emphasis.

Except I think it's more about *when* than *where,* David.

Adobe Acrobat mimics the publishing process and does not define a new
paradym. We don't need fancier cameras so we can take better photos
of a play. We need to move the camera so we can create movies.

I could spend a lot of time and effort debating the first six words above,
because I flat-out think they're bogus, and that their bogosity(?) should be
obvious to anyone who truly examines PDF technology. David continues to
repeat them; perhaps Goering had a point. But let's let them pass for now,
and examine the proposition as if they *were* true.

Everyone wants to "define a new paradigm." Except that if you do, and your
customers aren't there yet, what happens to your customers? Odds are great
(but declining) that if your customers are not intimately connected with the
web, docs in HTML format will be daunting.

There may indeed come a time when even your toaster has a web interface.
There may even come a time when it doesn't take any more effort to create
professional-quality documentation formatted in HTML than in current DTP
tools. Neither time is, however, now. As in all such changes, timing is

Have fun,
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224

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: PDF versus HTML
Next by Author: Re: PDF vs. HTML
Previous by Thread: Re: PDF vs. HTML
Next by Thread: Re: PDF vs. HTML

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

Sponsored Ads