Oops, my bad, I was reading old messages.
--
When you say that you agree to a thing in principle, you mean that
you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice.
-- Otto Von Bismarck
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscrib
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 09:25:21AM -0800, Sreelal Chandrasenan wrote:
Isn't this the same ID10T that had all his email forwarded to the list
a few days ago?
--
When you say that you agree to a thing in principle, you mean that
you have not the slightest intention of carrying it out in practice.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Hancock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 9:27 AM
To: debian users
Subject: Re: PDF spec (Was: Re: ooh! debian jewelry)
On Sunday 14 December 2003 07:31 pm, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 at 15:54 GMT, J.H.M. Das
n't think I remembered to say "Thank you", myself, Ray.
So, thank you for the link! It appears that I stand corrected
on the PDF spec issue.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com
--
To UNSUBSCR
Monique posts:
>> I could have sworn that PDF was a spec published by Adobe and freely
>> usable, but google seems to disagree
Should the PDF format be used and recommended by governments? The
Govt. of India is calling for opinions and this link is interesting
http://gnu.org.in/philosoph
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 at 15:54 GMT, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) penned:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 14:08:21 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
>> Hrm, I could have sworn that PDF was a spec published by Adobe and
>> freely usable, but google seems to disagree.
>
> Google isn't quite the all-seeing eye yet.
>
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:50:32 -0600,
Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I attended media production classes
> for staff at Caltech in which making maximum use of these
> PDF 5 features was *really* pushed hard (sometime last year).
> No doubt they had also
Terry Hancock writes:
> Which says they're trying to deny certain fair use rights...
No it doesn't. Fair use is defined by law. It grants you the right to do
certain things _without_ _the_ _copyright_ _owner's_ _permission_. The
publisher has no obligation to enumerate your fair use rights. Th
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 12:56:45 -0600, Terry Hancock wrote:
> I accessed this without registering because you provided a deep-link, but
> normally, Adobe makes you go through a forms process to get this far,
> AFAICT.
Nope. I very vaguely recalled it being available on "developer.adobe.com"
(whic
On Sunday 14 December 2003 09:54 am, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> http://partners.adobe.com/asn/tech/pdf/specifications.jsp has e.g.
> the PDF Reference, Fourth Edition, Version 1.5 (1172 pages). xpdf seems to
> handle the "Acrobat 5" version of it just fine.
Hmm. Yes, that's very interesting. I
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 14:08:21 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> Hrm, I could have sworn that PDF was a spec published by Adobe and freely
> usable, but google seems to disagree.
Google isn't quite the all-seeing eye yet.
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/tech/pdf/specifications.jsp has e.g.
the P
On Saturday 13 December 2003 10:11 pm, Nunya wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:08:07PM -0600, Terry Hancock wrote:
> > It would be conceivable to call PDF 4 an open standard, since
> > Ghostscript can already handle it. But we really ought to make
> > a distinction, since the newer versions are
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:08:07PM -0600, Terry Hancock wrote:
> It would be conceivable to call PDF 4 an open standard, since
> Ghostscript can already handle it. But we really ought to make
> a distinction, since the newer versions are incompatible.
Or, I could even quote the right paragraph.
[
On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:08:07PM -0600, Terry Hancock wrote:
>
> This is equally true of DOC format, too, though. We *could* adopt
> some prior version of it as a standard, seeing as several open
> word processors can handle them already.
Many PDFs I get don't display correctly in gv.
The Calo
On Saturday 13 December 2003 03:08 pm, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> Oops. Hrm, I could have sworn that PDF was a spec published by Adobe
> and freely usable, but google seems to disagree. It references some old
> links from the adobe site, but they seem to have been removed.
PDF 5.x is supposed to
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 at 20:36 GMT, Terry Hancock penned:
>
> Furthermore, PDF isn't really an open data format, just a closed one
> that turned out to be easier to crack than .doc files. Adobe isn't
> any nicer about sharing their standards than Microsoft is. The fact
> that we have good Linux re
16 matches
Mail list logo
