somewhere near the temporal coordinates of 9/7/01 6:59 PM, the entity known
as Grant [Sockeye] Hutchinson transmitted the following from
grant_at_splorp.com:
>
>
> Here's a few cents worth of blathering on my part. I'm not offering any
> guarantees on the accuracy of the statements or opinions found herein.
>
>> A PDF reader would require quite a lot of stuff:
>>
>> - (the big one) code to support a graphics model FAR richer than
>> that provided in QuickDraw. PDF's model is effectively the same
>> as PostScript's, including affine transformations over disjoint
>> paths, bezier objects, and arbitrary fills.
>
> Wouldn't most of us be happy with a model that handled basic, scrollable
> layout sans heavy graphics. The majority of the PDF documents I view and
> retain for future reference are 98% text. I realize that one of the major
> benefits (and selling points) of PDF is the accurate reproduction of
> complex layout and aesthetic nuances. But in reality, most PDF documents
> lack both of these things because it's mainly about the data content.
>
I can't recall the last time I saw a PDF that was that devoid of graphics!
Essentially 100% of the docs I encounter have graphics (charts, plots,
equations, etc.) which are heavily referred to in the text. So, in the
portion of reality that *I* inhabit, while I agree that "it's mainly about
the data content", said 'data content' has a substantial non-text component.
- Eric.
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:39 EDT