Talk:Portable Document Format
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Portable Document Format article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
- 1 Intro does not mention the cross-plaform advantage of the PDF format
- 2 OCR hidden text layer
- 3 Open or closed format?
- 4 Annotation
- 5 It seems that ISO 32000-2 had been cancelled
- 6 XFDF latest Version is 3.0
- 7 Conversion problem
- 8 Full function PDF
- 9 256-bit AES and Mac Preview
- 10 PCL?
- 11 Heading "Standardized subsets of PDF" is wrong?
Intro does not mention the cross-plaform advantage of the PDF format
One of the key advantages of the PDF document format from the very get-go was that PDF docs would appear exactly the same on a Mac as on a PC (and later Linux). Since this was and is a key advantage of the PDF format, this really should be mentioned in the intro. That is why it's called "Portable Document Format". --188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- What? This is literally covered in the first sentence... 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Don't you mean Decades later Linux? I don't think it would be right to call this a key advantage without calling it a key disadvantage. Consider 1993 in computer history. About 1 million Apple ][ PCs were still in daily use. Most of the 10 million commodore 64 and variants were still in use. Amiga and Atari 16-bit PCs were at the height of their popularity. There were 50,00 NeXT computers operating in the business world. And Linux had been doubling its install base every year (and still continues to do so). Later, BeOS experienced notable popularity outside the IBM-Apple biverse. Adobe ignored all this. Brøderbund, Xerox, heck, even Microsoft did documents on more than 3 platforms. Most everybody who did more than one platform did more than three. Adobe had the advantage of working on IBM-PC and Macintosh, nothing more, and certainly not 'cross-platform'. And you may just want to skip mentioning Linux because Adobe doesn't actually support it, they never did. In they created Adobe Reader for UNIX (another market they ignored) and in 2007 discontinued it. The fact that this reader ran, sorta, on Linux was a coincidence. None of the PDF readers, and never any of the PDF creators, used on Linux have any official support from Adobe. Adobe PDF remains a two-platform format to this day. See here, no Linux.
That sentence isn't clear enough for everyday folk to understand. Just saying that it is independent of any software application or OS doesn't mean it's necessarily cross-platform. Figure out why on your own, I don't have time to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- it is the standardized format. Even this is enough to understand it is (must be) portable. No exists some special pdf's magic of its cross-platformness other than implementation's conformance to the specification. Just like with other formats e.g. Html.
Please add information about the OCR hidden text layer. How can this layer be made visible? In what ways can it be exported? Are multiple such layers allowed?-18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Open or closed format?
Could someone please clarify if it's an open format in terms of anybody developing software to create such a file or if a license has to be payed to Adobe.
Under Annotation I expect some information on PDF-Annotations, not about software that can edit or import PDFs to annotate. Are PDF-annotations vector or pixel or both? How are highlights stored or why does highlighing not work with scanned documents but with scanned documents plus OCR? Do I need PDF/1.7 or does PDF/1.3 support all of this?--22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
--> look at XFDF
It seems that ISO 32000-2 had been cancelled
See http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53041. Trilemma2 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
XFDF latest Version is 3.0
This should be updated
I never understood why a text PDF cannot be simply saved from PDF reader as RTF file that can be edited by virtually any word processor. OK, 3rd party apps can do this, but the result is not exactly the same as the original. Mazarin07 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Full function PDF
"Full function PDF" looks non-English. Is it actually used in any source or is it an invention of an editor?
- On the page VII of ISO 32000 (freely published by Adobe) is the following sentence: "ISO 32000 is an ISO standard for the full function PDF; the following standards are for more specialized uses. PDF/X (ISO 15930) is now the industry standard ..." Leonard Rosenthol from Adobe also calls ISO 32000 as an "ISO PDF umbrella" - for PDF/A, PDF/X, PDF/E, PDF/UA (subsets of the full PDF specification). --126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
256-bit AES and Mac Preview
- Hi. If the opposite was true, it would have been worth mentioning. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
According to HP's help forums, it seems that the HP printer languages PCLm and PCLmS are PDF1.7 with embedded fonts? If this is so should it appear in this article? -- 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Heading "Standardized subsets of PDF" is wrong?
Surely this heading is wrong? I mean, PDF/A is not a subset of PDF; and neither is PDF/E. Are we stuck with the word "subset" for some historical reason, or could it be changed to something more meaningful such as "application"? MarcMFresko (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)