Mike Mestnik wrote:
Over the past few mouths I've received more unusable PDFs then I've
ever received usable PDFs.
... snip
I have asked senders to choose a better format, but they keep coming.
Many sites that have PDFs as part of there content do not seam to be
having this problem it's when
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:10:18PM -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 10:12 -0500, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > > (a) What DE & PDF reader are you using?
> > >
> > What could be better then any copy of GS made after 2000?
> >
> > GPL Ghostscript 8.15 (2004-09-22)
>
> There's your pro
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 10:12 -0500, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> I'm CCing Ron as I don't expect my comment will be un-delayed
> reaching the rest of the list.
Not the case.
> Any advice for posting by non-list members?
Don't CC people. Subscribe to the list (though non-subscribers can
still post) and
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:56:23PM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> 2008/6/27 Mike Mestnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I would really appreciate a website that outlined these issues that I
> > could direct ppl too, after they send me content that is not readable.
>
>
> Good idea. Why not set one up? You
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:21:24PM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> 2008/6/27 Mike Mestnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...
>
>
> The trouble here seems to be, at least in part, that Adobe feels at liberty
> to extend the PDF spec without caring about users with non-Adobe readers.
> Adobe probably won't alter
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:43:07AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 06/27/08 10:12, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:18:08PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 06/25/08 17:33, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> >>> Over the past few mouths I've received more unusable PDFs then I've
> >>> ever rec
2008/6/27 Mike Mestnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would really appreciate a website that outlined these issues that I
> could direct ppl too, after they send me content that is not readable.
Good idea. Why not set one up? You could make a page on ghostscript.com or
set up your own site at whatswro
2008/6/27 Mike Mestnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
The trouble here seems to be, at least in part, that Adobe feels at liberty
to extend the PDF spec without caring about users with non-Adobe readers.
Adobe probably won't alter its approach unless it feels a significant
community backlash is brewing
2008/6/27 Mike Mestnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
The trouble here seems to be, at least in part, that Adobe feels at liberty
to extend the PDF spec without caring about users with non-Adobe readers.
Adobe probably won't alter its approach unless it feels a significant
community backlash is brewing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/27/08 10:12, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:18:08PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 06/25/08 17:33, Mike Mestnik wrote:
>>> Over the past few mouths I've received more unusable PDFs then I've
>>> ever received usable PDFs. Well
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 08:18:08PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 06/25/08 17:33, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> > Over the past few mouths I've received more unusable PDFs then I've
> > ever received usable PDFs. Well maybe that's an exaggeration, but it
> > still doesn't excuse the large number of broken
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/25/08 17:33, Mike Mestnik wrote:
> Over the past few mouths I've received more unusable PDFs then I've
> ever received usable PDFs. Well maybe that's an exaggeration, but it
> still doesn't excuse the large number of broken documents in this for
Over the past few mouths I've received more unusable PDFs then I've
ever received usable PDFs. Well maybe that's an exaggeration, but it
still doesn't excuse the large number of broken documents in this format
I've received.
I have asked senders to choose a better format, but they keep coming.
Ma
13 matches
Mail list logo
