------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=151614
------- Additional Comments From rik osrc info 2008-08-02 06:27 -------
> Do you noticed that all people are talking about
> annotations within the document and not changing
> the content of the file?
Yep. And you effectively _change_ the file when you store annontations inside
it. And that's what I don't want to have, at least by default. Hence writing
this. Once again, it is _viewer_, it's not supposed to _change_ files.
> If you want to do that, hold two different files -
> the original and the annotated - you will have the freedom.
Nice. Should I give an example when having two copies of, say, some contract
document can lead to unexpected results? :)
> I really like this kind of fundamentalism. Everybody
> knows the exact date when all possible formats will
> have the same ability to store the same amount of
> data (like annotations): NEVER
Who cares about formats ability to store annotations? I can annotate _any_
format NOW (_exactly_ because of separate storage of document itself and
private annotations), that's what matters. Just give some option to easily
exchange this annotations and voila!
And if you make embedded-in-the-doc annotations for PDF then suddenly one
format behaves radically different from the others. What's so good about it in
universal viewer? And, to repeat, I have nothing against that as long as it is
_option_ and not default one.
Don't get me wrong, I know it is requested, I do see the number of votes, and
I'm _not_ shouting "kill this damn request, kill". I'm just trying to make some
points that I think is relevant for discussion and that might affect app design
considerations. After all, it's all up to developers to decide.
_______________________________________________
Okular-devel mailing list
Okular-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/okular-devel
