Jump to content

Talk:PDF

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mpbailey (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 2 February 2021 (→‎How is pdf considered an open format since you need to pay for the spec ?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

What is the future of PDF?

PDF has been around since the late-1990's. Is obsolescence in the future? While it remains a mainstream data format, will PDF still be readable 100 years from now? --2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this "Five visions of a PDF future". and "PDF Association".. PDF Association purpose is keeping PDF relevant. There are "3D PDF"., U3D as well as many available conversions anything to PDF. This article needs improving in my opinion as some sections to bring out more ISO standardization, possibly future as you mentioned and organize sections better. Gpeja (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is pdf considered an open format since you need to pay for the spec ?

Maybe this needs to be clarified. E.g. open format? PDF-3200-2008:yes, PDF-3200-2008:no, or reference should be provided which should explain that a format can be considered open even if the maintainer requires paying for licensing usage of the spec.


In Open_format the first reference free_file_format states: "Thus, open format should refer to any format that is published for anyone to read and study but which may or may not be encumbered by patents, copyrights or other restrictions on use."

I don't think current PDF-2.0 meets the abbove requirement: "..published for anyone to read and study.."

My opinion is that current version of PDF is not an open format.

Furthermore in the absense of a document granting royalty-free rights to implementors (e.g. like in the old spec: ISO32000-1PublicPatentLicense ), specific mention on whether the format is free should be made in the article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipiuser (talkcontribs) 08:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PDF <2.0 is an open format, but 2.0 is not. I do however find it a little amusing that the spec is itself a PDF, creating a self-referential situation where you need to already have software that can understand PDF in order to read about how to understand it... 50.68.13.81 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Open_format page describes open format as "usually maintained by a standards organization". ISO is clearly a standards organization, but it costs money to purchase most of their standards. That does not imply a license cost to implement and make use of the standard, just a need to pay for the text that describes it. Further down the open format page it includes PNG as an example of an open format. PNG, like PDF 2.0, is an ISO standard, and it is not free to obtain the text. Every ISO standard includes a statement about required patents; in the case of PDF 2.0, no necessary patents have been identified. So no licensing costs for using PDF 2.0 have been identified there either. I'm struggling to see how PDF 2.0 can be seen as failing to meet the criteria for being an open standard. Mpbailey (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

The section Conversions just provides a random and incomplete list of file formats. Most (all?) of these conversions will cause some loss of information, so they are not different from conversions in regards to any other file format. This whole section seems like a hidden advertisement for PDFTron. --Peter (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disabling Javascript security benefits outweigh the incompatibilities is not supported by the cited source

See Title

It only says that the author recommends disabling it and _they_ just want to view a pdf and _they_ don't need javascript. I can't see how the sentences there[1] imply the benefits outweigh the incompatibilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF#cite_ref-57

https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-187.txt

141.2.177.193 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MUZAMMIL ZULFIQAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.116.231 (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]