|
|
Posted by Mark Goodge on 10/06/24 11:42
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:53:36 -0700, Neredbojias put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>With neither quill nor qualm, if quothed:
>
>> "Martin Underwood" <news@isp.com> wrote in
>> news:44174d66$0$3609$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net:
>>
>> > I think the bigger issue with HTML and browser design is that it only
>> > supplies *hints* and *suggestions* as to the formatting, rather than
>> > making all browsers display a page with identical formatting, as PDF
>> > does. It would be so much easier as the designer of a site if you
>> > could be confident that everyone would see the same view of the page
>> > without the line breaks and table column widths being variable under
>> > user control.
>>
>>
>> The problem with this suggestion is that Acrobat is probably one of the
>> worst methods for displaying documents on-screen ever devised. Its complete
>> inflexibility has me cursing almost every time I have open a PDF document.
>
>Many people disagree with this but I, for one, concur wholeheartedly.
>I'd much rather peruse a document via html (-decent html that is.)
PDF has its place. It's particularly good for viewing detailed
technical drawings, plans, etc, as the user can zoom in and out within
the document itself rather than needing to have multiple copies at
different resolutions. It's also good for on screen proofing of a
document that will be published in print, such as the layout of a
magazine. It's also useful for electronically transmitting print
documents from one site to another, such as from a designer to a
printer. What it doesn't do very well is act as an alternative to HTML
for text-based documents that are created primarily for reading
online.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.GoogleFun.info - fun and games with Google!
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|