PDF vs Markup Languages

From: Clinton Jones <clinton_at_TTALK.COM>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:51:03 -0400

I believe that one of the reasons that PDF took off the way it did, was the
fact that it was a nice halfway point between a digital document and a print
document. Publishers and authors alike could get a perfect replica of the
print document into a digital form at relatively zero cost. The deficiencies of
early HTML was that it did have the pixel positioning that current versions
and extensible versions have. The pixel positioning is available now and
the dozens of supplementary issues like interractivity etc have made this
type of publishing redundant. Or has it ? I think that some journals,
particularly 'reprinted' ones will always have to be provided in a PDF
format, primarily because redoing them in HTML will be too costly and too
time consuming. I am afraid that PDF's will be around for a long time to
come but I agree that all new documents should be provided in a HTML
format and not relatively inflexible PDF.

International +27 (82) 6533776
In the US 888 639 4954 ext 206
ICQ : 9937735
For the Latest in Techformation on the World Wide Web

Fast Talk (3 minutes)

You must become the change you want to see in the world
 Aboriginal saying :Charles Handy, The Hungry Spirit, p.103
Received on Tue Aug 25 1998 - 19:17:43 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:45:25 GMT