Talk:Portable Document Format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portable Document Format article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article is part of WikiProject Graphic design, which collaborates on graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
View comments (edit)
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1: Oct 2002 - Sep 2005
  2. /Archive 2: Sep 2005 - Dec 2006


Contents

[edit] Why called PDF?

Where does the name come frome? Aren't all files "portable"? I can e-mail .doc and .ofm just as well. Just wondering why pdf.

i think the first sentence now addresses this, perhaps somewhat (points 1, 2 & 3): PDF is used for representing two-dimensional documents in a (1) device-independent and (2) display resolution-independent (3) fixed-layout document format. That is to say, you can email any doc, but they'll appear quite different unless they're PDF or PS, hence, not "portable", i suppose. Michael (talk|contrib) 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Portable means also platform independence, i.e. PDF can be generated, processed, and rendered on many platforms. --AFBorchert 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Disagree

I don't know how this became an ISO standard. Is this a new way to market software, by making an ISO standard for it's format? There are several statements in this article that are simply not true. PDF is not an open standard. It is a proprietary format. It is not software independent. PDF is not even a good format. It is unlikely it will become the defacto standard for web documents as the article implies. The whole point of web documents is to separate content from presentation (e.g., HTML, XML). I assume this article was written by someone in Adobe and is clearly marketing fluff. Mingramh (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, I believe there oughta be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.53.133 (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Further criticism"

I was tempted to remove the following paragraph, but there may be something in there, which I do not understand:

"Further criticism is also centered around the restrictive, proprietary nature of the format, which does not allow free, direct encoding and modification of documents in PDF."

What does "free" mean here? Surely with a text editor, you can go in and modify any PDF file, as much as you want. You cannot usually add a paragraph to a text, and I think it is valid to mention that restriction, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the format is proprietary.

What does "direct encoding" mean? Are we talking about encryption or character set? If it is encryption, it seems the "criticism" simply is that the encryption algorithm is not free. But then, no one "criticises" Word for not being free, do they? I do not see any problem with the character set in later PDF formats, even though it could be messy in earlier version. Mlewan 08:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems, to be honest, to be nonsense. If the comment is that PDF files are hard to directly edit and create (without using software), because of the complexity of the design of PDF, this is true (relative to simpler formats), but is unconnected to the proprietary origins. If this is stating that it is difficult because it is proprietary, this makes no sense: the PDF specification is readily available. If it is saying that because it is proprietary, free/open source software is not allowed, this is just wrong. So I have removed it. Of course, if I've completely misunderstood a valid and verifiable criticism, it only needs to be added back with a suitable source. Notinasnaid 09:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it really relevant whether the criticism is valid? All that would be needed is a reliable source showing that this is a common criticism. Those who think it's a bad criticism (and I include myself) could cite sources refuting it. I agree with the deletion but I think it's an unnecessary distraction to argue about whether the criticism is correct; WP:NOR is a sufficient reason to delete it. Mrhsj 16:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. Verifiable is enough; I should not have said "valid". However, it does need to be comprehensible. Notinasnaid 17:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two potentially valid points that might be made. It is possible that the basic internal file format of pdf is such that it is difficult to modify/edit the contents. And it is very likely that part of the current wave of security features of all sorts is to intentionally make it extremely hard to edit/modify the contents of pdf files that use such security features.--69.87.203.22 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse engineering a pdf

Something about how to reverse engineer a pdf back to the point where it was saved as a pdf would be useful on this page. People are always asking me if they can do this; as i have only a hazy idea that there are tools out there that can do it I usually sidestep the question. Daveches 10:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to the article, which just describes the file format. There are plenty of tools which can work directly with PDF files. Chris Cunningham 11:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The buzzword you want is "extraction": you're just getting out content, not reverse engineering which means something quite different. Notinasnaid 11:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The buzzword is not necessarily "extraction": it's often about fomatting as well as content. eg if I have Microsoft Word on my machine and the PDF was saved from Word, can I get back to the Word document with all its formatting (eg to make a change then resave as PDF?)Daveches 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
There are commercial tools that will attempt to convert a PDF to Word format. They generally do not do a perfect job. The fact that the PDF format typically does not preserve all the information required to represent its source word processing document is germane to the article and it would be reasonable to include a statement about this if someone want to take the time to write a good well-sourced one. But a discussion of the capabilities of particular tools would be off-topic - this isn't a tech support forum. Mrhsj 04:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backwards Compatibility

The sentence about backwards compatibility should probably be deleted or changed. 1) No Backwards_Compatibility means newer readers can't read (some) older files, not the other way around - what the article currently claims. 2) Backwards Compatibility is almost always a function of the particular reader software used, not the format itself. Because this article is about the format, the statement is very confusing. I've also found no reference to backward compatibility issues online, and I'm inclined to think that the original author of that sentence was just frustrated because old reader software doesn't open new PDF documents; but that isn't really a backwards compatibility issue. Dana Powers 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The sentence originally read "forwards-compatible." I wrote that, and that's what I meant. Someone changed it to backwards-compatible, which is incorrect. To me, saying "the format is backwards compatible" means that a reader written to a new specification will be able to open files written to an older specification. To say "the format is forwards compatible" means that a reader written to an older specification will be able to read a file written to a newer specification. The PDF format is backwards compatible; it is not forwards compatible. Mrhsj 17:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh - which makes way more sense. It should definitely be changed back to forwards compatible then. Right now its just a logically confusing sentence. A cite would also be nice, as would clarifying that this is a property of the specification itself, not just a single application. Dana Powers 18:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not get the point. Is any format ever forwards-compatible? Not even common text documents of today can always be opened in old versions of vi, because text files now often are UTF16. Check out .doc, .xls, .123, .rtf, .psd, .tif... Is any of them or any other format forwards-compatible? Mlewan 18:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is extremely difficult to achieve forward-compatibility, to be sure, which explains why most of the document formats you mention are not forwards-compatible. But it isn't impossible. Dana Powers 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I've investigated a little further and found the BX and EX operators (this in the 1.3 spec; I haven't looked at others). They allow a PDF writer to specify that certain commands in a particular document should be ignored when read if they are unrecognized. This would allow creation of forwards-compatible PDFs, but it doesn't require it. Dana Powers 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There are features in PDF that were intended to facilitate forwards-compatibility. That's why I rewrote the statement that said the format "wasn't designed" for forwards compatibility - it kind of was, it just didn't fully achieve the goal. I don't have a copy of the 1.0 spec so I can't do a proper sourced statement, but I recall that it promised that if a non-compatible change were ever introduced to PDF (one that would break an old reader completely) then the PDF version number would be bumped to 2.0. But such changes were in fact made (e.g. with the introduction of Flate in 1.2 and Object Streams in 1.5) without the major version being bumped. Mrhsj 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Openness and old Microsoft rumors.

I deleted this material: "(There is now some contention whether PDF will truly be an open standard in light of Adobe Systems threatening to sue Microsoft Corporation for including the ability to write PDF's in some of their products, see external links.)"

Here's the history: in June 2006 Microsoft decided to change its PDF export tool from a bundled add-in to an add-in users would have to go their website to download. They claimed this had something to do with a threat of a lawsuit from Adobe, but this was never confirmed and no suit was filed. Then in January 2007 Adobe announced it was going to submit PDF to a standards body.

I don't see how those facts support the claim that "there is 'now' some contention...". That statement would require citations showing that there has been controversy *since* the Jan 2007 announcement, and that that controversy had something to do with this old rumor. Mrhsj 04:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The reported existence (or threat) of this antitrust suit has been widely used to support all manner of tenuous conclusions, in this article and elsewhere. Notinasnaid 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be worth noting a particular error: some people assume that because Adobe is reported to be considering a suit because Microsoft may add PDF creation to Office, that therefore it must be because PDF is a secret, or requires a payment or license to develop for, and Microsoft don't have Adobe's permission for this. To be clear, no permission is needed, PDF is not a secret, and these are not the grounds for the reported threat of a law suit. Notinasnaid 08:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the you STOP removing any discussion of the openness of PDF until you can point to ONE article from ANY source where a representative of Adobe states that they have no intent to sue Microsoft (or any one else) for inclusion of PDF code in Office 2007 (or any other product). This smacks to me of someone who has a strong vested interest in Adobe and is not interested in unbiased reporting of the facts. It should also be noted that handing a specification over to a standards body does not in itself make the standard open in any real sense. Please review the situation with the JPEG standard which was built from the ground up as an open standard, but was the subject of extensive litigation years later. Forgent Networks sued over 30 corporations for patent infringement for creating applications that could read and write in the JPEG "standard".
So, come forward with VERIFIABLE proof of your claims that PDF is an open standard with no threat of litigation, or stop removing discussion of this issue. It is critical information to anyone that is considering adding PDF support to an application they may write. Your whitewashing of the issue does not help. - Sincerely, a non-Adobe employee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.100.5 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2007
I believe you are mistaken. The burden is not on editors to show that that Adobe have denied an intention to bring a suit against Microsoft. The burden falls on an editor who wants to add information that it is verifiable. The suit has been reported, but drawing conclusions about the openness of the standard from the suit seems to be entirely different, and this requires a reliable source. Reports I have read sugest the suit relates to anti-trust issues, not intellectual property or standards. You also seem to be confusing open standards with patent issues; these are entirely different things. Some open standards contain acknowledged patents and some are alleged later. However, there is disagreement on the definition of "Open standard", please see the article for details. If you are interested in Adobe's statement on the intellectual property issues connected with PDF, please see section 1.5 of the PDF Reference. Notinasnaid 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree, my points are very well documented. There are at least 10 articles from reliable sources that discuss the pending lawsuit, but NONE that state there is no threat of lawsuit. How can you continue to state that the "burden falls on an editor who wants to add information that is verifiable". My information is completely verifiable, yours is not. Also you state that "suit relates to anti-trust issues, not intellectual property or standards". Well, it doesn't matter what the suit relates to directly. It directly influences the format and is critical information that someone who comes to Wikipedia might need to know (e.g. if they are deciding if they can add PDF export to their product). If you still disagree I suggest an independent third party review what is verifiable and decide if this information should be shown in the wiki entry. So far I see little to convince me that you aren't just an employee of Adobe who has a strong vested interest in showing that company in a positive light. I don't work for Adobe, Microsoft, or any other company that has a vested interest in the PDF/Markup business. However I strongly suspect that you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.100.5 (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2007
Please try to rein in the personal attacks and let's focus on the article content. If this article reports the lawsuit it can only report what the reliable sources say. If the source draws conclusions, it can report those conclusions (as quotes, if they are not universally agreed). But if editors draw those conclusions, this is original research and clearly not allowed. My view is that what people planning to add PDF export need to know is in the PDF Reference, as defined above, do you have a reliable source that contradicts this Adobe source? Now, I'm going to wait and see what others say. Notinasnaid 00:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not making a personal attack, but I am questioning whether you are impartial. I think it is quite well established that impartiality is critical when providing public information. I believe you should state unequivocally whether you are financially compensated by Adobe so other readers can fairly judge your motivations. This becomes a critical issue over time since someone who is paid can keep arguing forever, whereas someone who wishes to add content because they believe it to be accurate and in the best public interest to distribute will eventually give up. Whatever the case, I hope a disinterested third party will make a judgement so I can move on. If they say I'm wrong and the information should not be present, I'll drop it immediately, but if they say the content should be present I think it should be added and you should be prevented from removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.100.100.5 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2007
Well it's been a couple days and no third party has given an opinion. Unless someone offers an opinion soon, I'm going to add content discussing the lawsuit back in since it appears to be a simple difference of opinion and there is no consensus. Unless someone else rules, I expect that the content will be left in the article. Twikir 08:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The rationale for removing it is still valid. This isn't a case of consensus, it's a case of policy, which says that random unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material has no place on Wikipedia. (out of interest, are you the same user as the anon above?) Chris Cunningham 09:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, the contention is whether the threat of suit by Adobe over Microsoft's attempt to add PDF creation functionality calls into question the concept of PDF as an 'open standard'. Do we have a reference that actually makes the above supposition? If so, put it in the article with the citation of the source and let's be done. If not, then the supposition is original research and it shouldn't go in. Whether Adobe actually has any intent to actual start litigation seems irrelevant to the issue at hand. Blade 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't link the two. However I do think the lawsuit is relevant to PDF as a format and it should be mentioned in the article somewhere. Personally I would say it strange for Adobe not to deny the lawsuit if there was indeed no threat. While obviously we can't mentioned this in the article, it seems to me therefore likely that there was a threat. Most likely the threatened law suit was not copyright/patent (as even before Adobe annouced they were going to submit PDF to the ISO, you could still use it provided certain conditions are met) related but anti-competitive behaviour related 13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the question was directed at me, but since I'm the one who removed the material in question, I'm happy to state that I do NOT have a conflict of interest on this topic as defined by Wikipedia. Mrhsj 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


The section Technical Foundations states that Adobe licences on royalty-free bases the patents on pdf. But the webpage to which this is referenced actually does not list any patent for which that is true. quote: ...Accordingly, the following patents are licensed on a royalty-free, nonexclusive basis for the term of each patent and for the sole purpose of developing software that produces, consumes, and interprets PDF files that are compliant with the Specification: U.S. Patent Numbers: But no patent number is listed. So it looks like that claim applies to no patent. If no one has a better reference I'd suggest to modify the text. Poderi (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Looks like a problem with the styles on the Adobe web page. Actually the patent numbers ARE listed, but they're displayed in the background color, so they're invisible. If you select the text in that area and copy/paste to a text editor, you can see the patent numbers. Adobe just needs to fix their HTML. Mrhsj (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of layout engines (XHTML) see also link

Is the "Comparison of layout engines (XHTML)" link under see also really relevant for this article, or am I missing something? --ScottyWZ 04:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] biast in the article

my question is why does this article have an advantages section and not a disadvantages section to me this is an obvious biast towards adobe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr noire (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, add a section on it then. Just be sure that you cite your sources and the sources are verifiable. Avoid original research as well. Blade 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation?

The "Advantages" section seems like it has been picked up from PDF/A - Your Advantages, which is also acknowledged in the revision where it was added. It seems like a clear case of WP:COP to me, removing the content for now -- AshishKulkarni 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTML phoning home

"Like HTML files, PDF files may submit information to a web server." Can HTML files phone home? Sure, javascript embedded in HTML can, but HTML can't (AFAIK) --Taejo|대조 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in PDF's case it's also "JavaScript embedded in PDF" that actually phones home. So the parallel is pretty good. Mrhsj 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some re-work to the organization of the content

I suggest that instead of "Technology" use "Format overview" and have the following sub categories (that follows the topics in the PDF reference 1.7):

  1. Imaging model
  2. Portability
  3. Compression
  4. Font management
  5. File generation
  6. Random access
  7. Security
  8. Incremental update
  9. Extensibility

With this, the article (at least the tech part) will be firly complete and describe the interior of the format. Any objections? Khecaji 13:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. Go for it. Chris Cunningham 13:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New wikiproject

Is there any interest in starting a wikiproject dealing with various representations av information (e.g. imaging models, presentation layer, content layer) and related methods for cross-referencing (e.g. integration of related information that exists in various digital as well as printed formats)? Dynamics of information and related problems.

[edit] PDF Catalog: part of PDF, application-specific extensions?

The PDF "Catalog" (search index) -- is this part of any type of PDF-related standard (eg, open specification?) or completely a proprietary closed-specification add-on to Acrobat? Can any PDF reader (eg, see "implementations") use the ".pdx" index file, and could any application generate the index (catalog) file? Michael (talk|contrib) 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icon Image

Perhaps some information on the traditional PDF icon images would be handy - especially the one used on Wikipedia when linking to a pdf file (it should be noted that finding the URL for this image seems all but impossible) - and perhaps even tell where one can actually access a public domain variant of this icon. I understand if that's too specified of a topic for this, but I'm sure there are people who could use it (including me). Shoreu 18:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pdf (probability density function)

130.37.34.54 13:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Pdf is also a common abbreviation for Probability density function

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_density_function)

Shouldn't this also be on the wiki of pdf?

It is on the Wiki. You have a link to it just there. To find it from the abbreviation you go through PDF_(disambiguation), which is linked to from the top of Portable Document Format. Mlewan 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing PDF files

Could someone provide at least one example for this: There is also specialized software for editing PDF files. Palpalpalpal 06:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Acrobat Professional. Nitro PDF. Foxit PDF Editor. Iceni InFix PDF Editor. Enfocus Pitstop. Jaws PDF Editor. Mrhsj 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC).

iText is an Open Source library for creating and manipulating PDF, RTF, and HTML files in Java. -69.87.203.19 12:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internals

The article needs a great deal of additional material describing PDF file internal structure. Until then, reading a 1000 page reference manual is not an inviting place to start. Here are some options:

-69.87.202.139 21:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Just added some stuff; see if you like it. Mrhsj 22:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising

I think the sentence "An up-to-date antivirus program is paramount" does not have to be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.216.40 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indic Support

I have issues with Indic Languages (including my mother tongue Tamil). I can covert a UNICODE word or any document to a pdf however when try to copy and paste back to Microsoft Word doesn't work. I tried various tools like doPDF, Acrobat but I don't have a solution. Is there any work around avaiable? or does it support most of the European languages only? please clarify. --Umapathy (உமாபதி) 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CMYK jpgs

The image streams embedded in pdfs are sometimes jpgs (/DCTDecode) that can be extracted by hand into a file and viewed. But they are not always RGB; they may be /DeviceCMYK -- 4 bytes per pixel instead of 3? Which image viewers can properly handle CMYK jpgs? Irfanview sort-of recognizes the file type but shows false color, and then saves as a wrong RGB. Image Analyzer says it can handle CMYK, but does not seem to do it by default -- maybe with the ImageFileLib plugin? -69.87.199.97 14:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

i am writing to ask about how do you send the PDF files to the internet and can you send me some files on dida ict courework and some other files thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.211.234 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This 10 mo. User Barnaca is CENSORING My contribution

Ok so this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barneca

is removing my table which outlines pdf conversion options (their pros and cons by price and user-friendliness and comments etc.) I didnt read my messages and resposted it because my table was removed the moment I put it on.

So I want to know what PDF conversion options are there , right. How do I find out ? I start a table on wikipedia listing the pdf converstion options. Since I only know two tools Acrobat Professional and cutePDF (which is two more than 99% of the world) I posted those two on the page. Now Mr. Barneca thinks I am spamming for Cutepdf. The software is free! my professor recommended it for our class but I didnt find it entirely useful because evne though its easy to use the darn thing only converts one way -> all formats to PDF. I also tried Acrobat Professional conversion option but that didnt work so well so I posted my observation. Now for heaven's sakes is this clear that I am not a spammer? Could you please stop being the censor here and permit me to put some foundation for finding out the converstion options I have?

If you dont want me to a put a table or something with applications working with PDF standards how else would you want me to frame this? How would you suggest I start a framework which others could fill with information regarding PDF converstion options? Is not a table listing the applications, their cost, their usability and their TO FROM conversion fields appropriate in this scenario? This is really absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.218.205 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I see two issues:
  1. Whether you are "spamming" or not. It looked like it to me. I might be wrong. I'll assume the best, that you aren't, and apologize for jumping to conclusions and not assuming the best earlier.
  2. Whether this information belongs in the article or not. I think it does not. Wikipedia isn't a buying guide, and I don't think comparison tables about products belong in an encyclopedia article. You may not be spamming, but if we leave this table in, I guarantee it will be a spam magnet, and will soon be loaded with links to every PDF-related product imaginable. This is not "censoring" you, it's saying I don't think it should be here. If a consensus forms on this page to include such a comparison table, I'll gladly yield to consensus. It currently is unsourced as well, but I'll assume if consensus forms to include it, we can find references for everything.
I look forward to hearing other views. --barneca (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is it was right to remove the table. First, a table of this sort does not belong here. Please see WP:NOT, especially the sections on "Advertising," "Directories," and "Sales Catalogs," and "Instruction Manuals." The topic of this article is "Portable Document Format," not "tools for creating files in the Portable Document Format." Second, even if it were right to include the table, the content was unacceptable because the content violated WP:NPOV, for example by calling one product's quality "Poor".
Both of you, please assume good faith. User Barneca has already apologized for calling the table "spam". Anonymous user, it is not appropriate to accuse user Barneca of "censorship." It was simply an edit. Wikipedia editors routinely remove content they believe violates site guidelines. Assume good faith and debate the merits of the content based on Wikipedia policy. Mrhsj 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Microsoft section.

I deleted the section headed "Competing PDF Standards," which had the body, " Microsoft announced its competing PDF standard based on XML Parser Specification in 2005. In response PDF announced its own Mars project a year later following a breakdown in talks between the two companies over co-operation."

Reasons: First, the heading and beginning of section are nonsensical. XML Paper specification is not a "PDF Standard". What is a "PDF Standard" anyway? Second, "PDF announced..." is nonsense. PDF is a file format, and it doesn't know how to talk. Third, Mars is already discussed elsewhere in the article. Fourth, whether Mars was a "response" to XPS or not is a matter of conjecture, as is the question of whether it had anything to do with a "breakdown in talks" (between what two companies? Is PDF a company?). Such speculation needs to be identified as such an attributed to reputable sources.

I don't think the section added enough value to the article to be worth trying to salvage. Mrhsj 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Resolutions

When choosing between two different versions of the same digital photobook, one in PDF and the other as a collection of JPEG files, are there any builtin limitations to the Portable Document Format that render it inferior to its JPEG counterparts in terms of image resolution and quality?

This is supposedly related to PDF's inability to handle different image resolutions. Can someone please expand upon those hypothetical limitations? -- Ishikawa Minoru 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PDF Ebooks

I'd really like to get an ebook reader to alleviate eye fatigue and portability. The Sony Reader has poor support (in terms of the average pdf you might get from a website) and the new Amazon Kindle is much worse. Since most of my ebooks are pdfs, I thought I'd ask here why is it so difficult for portable devices to support the portable document format? Is there any reader that has good if not great support for pdfs? 75.2.117.191 (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copy protection using custom embedded fonts

Apparently, a new approach to protecting PDF content is to use software that generates "random" text, but also includes custom embedded fonts to make the document read and print correctly.

This makes it impossible to copy the text (search the document etc) as it will come across as random garbage when not viewed in the custom font(s) specifically created for that particular document, all without having to protect or restrict the PDF in anyway (protections that can be cracked anyway).

Now, as far as I can see this isn't mentioned at all on Wikipedia. Which programs have this feature? How well does it work? etc etc Any discussion or links much appreciated.

85.227.226.235 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creating PDFs

I think a section on how PDFs are created would be useful, I'd add one myself but I don't know how to create a PDF.Dendodge (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viewers, editors, and tools

The above quoted page contains external links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pdf#External_links) among them the sub-section "Viewers, editors, and tools".

I am trying to add the URL (http://www.webpdf.net) to our own website to that list.

I think that the URL has value to people and there are absolutely no strings attached. The website is free, there is no registration, nothing. It provides an online conversion capability so no software installation is necessary to create PDF files from proprietary content. People use the service after seeing the link in the Wiki Document and seem happy.


But the link is constantly deleted, being defined as "Spam" as "Shareware", etc. I seriously doubt any of the editors deleting the link have even so much as looked at the page it refers to. The section and subsection show links to e.g. Adobe (commercial software), Docudesk (dito) and many more. Our conversion page offers a place to convert a single document without having to buy anything, without the need to install software. A service to the community. No more, no less and I thus think that it is a valuable addition to a document such as this one.


Comments would be very welcome!

Ph wiki edit (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)