Wikipedia

Talk:PDF/Archive 4

< Talk:PDF
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 196.221.250.172 in topic Link to PDF Reference Manual
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Annotation

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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?--78.48.37.163 (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

--> look at XFDF

141.90.2.58 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Conversion problem

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi.

"Full function PDF" looks non-English. Is it actually used in any source or is it an invention of an editor?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

  • 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 ..."[1] 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).[2] --89.173.219.155 (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

256-bit AES and Mac Preview

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be worth mentioning that PDF encrypted with 256-bit AES (e.g., by Pro Xi) cannot be opened by Mac Preview? JDAWiseman (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If the opposite was true, it would have been worth mentioning. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

PCL?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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? -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Portable Document Format. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that ISO 32000-2 had been cancelled

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=53041. Trilemma2 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather old comment, but afaict the standard has not been canceled, in fact it's in draft as of 16 July 2016; see: ISO 32000-2.2. Mcswell (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Too technical.

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Frankly, we don't need terms like "lossy" and "lossless" in this article. That's for a tech manual, not an encyclopedia. There are other such brain-busters as well. Yours in Wikidom, your friend, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A different person then writes:
actually this is valuable information. lossless data encoding or data compression means that the replication is as the original. This reminds me of truetype fonts which are vector descriptions of letters. I can imagine a person making a PDF where thay want to only use lossless compression
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.122.22 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


Heading "Standardized subsets of PDF" is wrong?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Nope. PDF/A and PDF/E are, in fact, strict subsets of PDF. That is, they restrict the use of PDF features and do not add any features that PDF itself does not contain. Duff Johnson (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Dekimasuよ! 02:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


Portable Document Format → PDF – Per WP:COMMONNAME. feminist (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is the future of PDF?

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

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)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

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

References

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

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Somehow this external link

to be found in the external links section points to something else than the PDF reference. At the moment this page is forwarded to a documentation called DC Developer Resources, no sight of PDF reference. I am confused, since also other pages use this link as, e.g., de.wikipedia.org. Did something get broken along time?

As far as I understand PDF Reference refers to the PDF Reference Manual, i.e., PDF Reference, Third Edition - Adobe or is this document also deprecated.

Fabiangabel (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay. This was bugging me because I remember Adobe having the PDF 1.7 spec on their site. I found this page which links to all the PDF specifications, including 1.3-1.7, hosted on Adobe's site. The free link for ISO 32000-1:2008 "Document management — Portable document format — Part 1: PDF 1.7" is dead (or rather, redirects to DC Developer Resources), but can be found alongside their supplements here. I'm not sure the difference between these two versions, but maybe it has something to do with the errata?

Sprocklet (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.221.250.172 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PDF/Archive_4&oldid=1228473719"