D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] PDF vs DocBook vs LaTeX vs Word

 

On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:46:31 +0100
James Fidell <james@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Tom Potts wrote:
> 
> > I agree - for Paper Documents - its lousy on a screen*.

Depends how the PDF is created. It is certainly possible to create PDF
files that are not based on paper sizes. Typically, I produce those
from presentation-type software so there is a gap in the formatting
tools, not the format.

I'd like to be able to create screen-shape PDFs from DocBook but right
now creating paper-shape PDFs from DocBook is hard enough when using
the formatting tools rather than OOo.

Probably the best viewer for DocBook is actually yelp. I need to find
the XSL that they use at runtime so that I can create yelp HTML files
that others can view outside yelp itself.

> > However if, as someone else said, you want your paragraph in a certain font 
> > then you have to embed all the fonts in your document - that ends up with a 
> > severely bloated document.

Or you could use LaTeX and get a severely bloated package installation
but a smaller (less portable) file. ;-)
 
> My recollection of a "seminar" I attended many many years ago, certainly
> before most people had heard of PDF and probably before a lot of people
> had heard of HTML, was that the entire point of PDF was that it should
> render exactly the same way as the originator intended irrespective of
> the medium. 

If memory serves, LaTeX predates PDF, HTML and RTF.

> That's why it's necessary to embed fonts etc.  It's as much
> concerned with presentation as content (in fact, I think I'd probably
> argue that it's *more* concerned with presentation than content).

Indeed - with a predisposition for US-letter or A4.
 
> A corollary of this is that there are a whole range of display devices
> which are wholly unsuited to displaying PDF because they just don't
> provide the necessary functionality. 

They would be fine if the PDF wasn't inherently paper sized. IMHO what
PDF needs is a remapping from paper view to screen view but the problem
with PDF is that despite the verbosity of the format, it doesn't
include *enough* data to remap to a different size because it loses
track of all the page numbers, internal links and document sections.

> Some authors actually don't care
> about that because it's more important to them that the document should
> render exactly the way they require it to and their attitude is that if
> you can't view it by some method that allows it to do so, tough.

Sadly, most PDF authors *do not* require that the PDF renders exactly
as they intended - they simply assume that PDF is what everyone wants
because their only other option (as they see it) is a Word document. If
MS actually retained a compatible Word format, most PDF documents on
the WWW would actually be Word documents.

> I think that may be a personal preference thing.  I have a 1280x1024
> display, not large by any standards, and read a lot of PDF documentation
> on-screen. 

I have to read quite a lot on a 1074x768 and the "split-screen"
mentality drives me nuts. These are PDFs inherently designed to be
viewed on the computer as e-learning support but because the originals
also exist in paper form, the PDF is the A4 export of the original.

I much prefer to read DocBook - especially if I can download the
complete docbook and view it in yelp.

-- 


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpnpU52gNZ7g.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html