No, it wasn't "open", but Adobe was allowing use of previous revision specs for no licensing fee while keeping the most current spec proprietary for Acrobat Pro sales.
Adobe probably retains a lot of PDF specialized functionality even after this standard is made ISO. There will still be a lot of Acrobat specific stuff like forms and scripting, PDF-X, 3D, conferencing and so forth. I'd be surprised if they gave up all of that. It will be interesting to find out exactly what aspects actually make it into the ISO spec.
Can we FINALLY edit the things like a normal text document then ?
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
My depth of knowledge when it comes to PDF is quite shallow but with my years of experience working with the files... The Adobe PDF file format was built for presentation & distribution (especially on dissimilar systems) far more than it was ever intended to be an multi-editable document. (as noted by many people above)
Can we FINALLY edit the things like a normal text document then ?
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
PDF is not primarily for the film industry. Adobe developed PDF as a way to share documents while preserving their formatting and to produce high-quality print-outs on non-PostScript printers. If any industry is can be built around it, then it is the print industry.
As was stated above, PDF is not and never was intended to be a word-processing format. I can attest to the fact that even minor document changes in Acrobat Pro can totally screw-up a PDF. The benefit to using a format that doesn't lend itself to editing is small file sizes. If you make PDF editing as easy as Word or Excel, then you will have Word and Excel document sizes.
Can we FINALLY edit the things like a normal text document then ?
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
I think the problem is obtuseness as to the appropriate use for the appropriate format. If you want to edit something, then edit the original document, not the generated PDF. Editing from PDFs is like editing video extracted from the distributed DVD. It can technically be done, but it's not ideal.
Can we FINALLY edit the things like a normal text document then ?
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
And nothing has been MORE precise for the printing industry . Know what life was like before ? Bromides dude, eps files and postcript fonts everywhere. Seriously crap. Seriously what does hollywood use to write on ( toilet paper excluded )
Making PDF an ISO standard should allow applications like Pages, Word, WordPerfect, AbiWord, KWrite, Mellel, etc. to create/open/modify a pdf document as easily as its own "native" format, correct? If so, would it make more sense to save to PDF than ODF due to the number of PDF readers out there?
PDF vs ODF are Apples vs Oranges.
It's analogous to Postscript vs. XML and it's many child languages.
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
Ok, but you understand the difference a source document and an output format, right? Editing a PDF is bit like doing optical character recognition on a fax, or scanning a page containing a photo from a magazine and airbrushing out the text rather than going to the photographer's original file. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
It's horses for courses. The whole point of sending someone a PDF is that it's the final output, you can be sure exactly how it looks and the recipient isn't going to prat about with it screwing up page breaks and so on. If you're supposed to edit the document, get the client to send it to you as a Word or Pages document!
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
Both Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Word offer proper features and workflows for "Commenting" a document. You should really look into these.
It would require you and your client to own Acrobat Pro or Office whatever, but it is very easy to pass one file back and forth and to add "virtual post-it notes" to specific areas on the page or even to suggest changes and edits to specific sentences that the other can then approve or further modify.
* * *
As far as PDF becoming a working standard, that's never going to happen. I asked an Adobe Rep why InDesign didn't just save to the PDF format. He told me that PDFs get smaller by throwing away the "background structure" that other file types use to maintain editability. PDF is meant to be what is called a "Terminal Format" or "Delivery Format". Its the same reason you can't maintain editable layers and vector type in your GIF files even though you made them in Photoshop CS3.
Ok, but you understand the difference a source document and an output format, right? Editing a PDF is bit like doing optical character recognition on a fax, or scanning a page containing a photo from a magazine and airbrushing out the text rather than going to the photographer's original file. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
It's horses for courses. The whole point of sending someone a PDF is that it's the final output, you can be sure exactly how it looks and the recipient isn't going to prat about with it screwing up page breaks and so on. If you're supposed to edit the document, get the client to send it to you as a Word or Pages document!
-Rolf
From the original posters observations they don't know the difference.
I have never heard the word "customizability" and I am great at 'creating' new words!
Although your unique thinking has brighten my day, I think "customizable" or "customization" might have fit better?
Your not "strategery" with George Bush are you? (kidding, you know!)
I truly hope you're just joking. Customizability is a real word, not a "created" word and not unique thinking. Your alternatives mean very different things. The first is a noun meaning the amount of customization an item can have. "Customizable" is an adjective describing such an object. "Customization" is a noun, but it describes actual changes to that object.
I think Adobe should have done this three or four years ago. There has been a strange backlash against pdf in some quarters ? in evidence in some of the clueless posts here and on other forums ? and it is clear that many people just don't understand it. Pdf's are meant to be small and OS independent files that will give the same output on a Windows machine or a Mac. They ought to be the ideal format for academic journals to receive and disseminate to reviewers. Alas! Editors of journals and even publishers are often technically backward and insist on Word files even though they will cause everyone headaches the minute there is a glyph that is different on different operating systems.
If you are trying to make large scale edits to a pdf file you ? or someone around you ? does not have a clue what they are doing.
I truly hope you're just joking. Customizability is a real word, not a "created" word and not unique thinking. Your alternatives mean very different things. The first is a noun meaning the amount of customization an item can have. "Customizable" is an adjective describing such an object. "Customization" is a noun, but it describes actual changes to that object.
But what about the comment about Dubya (George Bush)? That seemed to be on target.
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
The sender was a moron. You output to PDF expressly to make changes HARDER and the appearance less platform dependent. The exact opposite of sending something for edits. Just send the damn source file, there's even one less step involved to do that!
Following in the wake of BruceLee, Skim is also a PDF commenting application, and it is free software. It won't change the actual file, but you can mark it up plenty good.
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
Then you should not be getting your client to send you a script in pdf format if you are expected to edit it. You should only be sent the script or any document for that matter in pdf if the author has no intention of allowing you to edit it.
Scripts are written either in Microsoft Word or a specialised screenplay programme such as Final Draft (The industry standard) or Celtx (freeware), the script will be kept and edited within the applications own file format and only exported to pdf when finished. You should have Final Draft and have the scripts sent to you in that format.
Adobe probably retains a lot of PDF specialized functionality even after this standard is made ISO. There will still be a lot of Acrobat specific stuff like forms and scripting, PDF-X, 3D, conferencing and so forth. I'd be surprised if they gave up all of that. It will be interesting to find out exactly what aspects actually make it into the ISO spec.
Everything contained in the Adobe PDF 1.7 specification, as previously published by Adobe is now ISO 32000. Other standards that PDF references, from OpenType & TrueType, to XMP and U3D are still the province of those other standards and documents and are referenced by ISO 32000.
Comments
No, it wasn't "open", but Adobe was allowing use of previous revision specs for no licensing fee while keeping the most current spec proprietary for Acrobat Pro sales.
Adobe probably retains a lot of PDF specialized functionality even after this standard is made ISO. There will still be a lot of Acrobat specific stuff like forms and scripting, PDF-X, 3D, conferencing and so forth. I'd be surprised if they gave up all of that. It will be interesting to find out exactly what aspects actually make it into the ISO spec.
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
Can we FINALLY edit the things like a normal text document then ?
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
My depth of knowledge when it comes to PDF is quite shallow but with my years of experience working with the files... The Adobe PDF file format was built for presentation & distribution (especially on dissimilar systems) far more than it was ever intended to be an multi-editable document. (as noted by many people above)
Dave
Can we FINALLY edit the things like a normal text document then ?
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
PDF is not primarily for the film industry. Adobe developed PDF as a way to share documents while preserving their formatting and to produce high-quality print-outs on non-PostScript printers. If any industry is can be built around it, then it is the print industry.
As was stated above, PDF is not and never was intended to be a word-processing format. I can attest to the fact that even minor document changes in Acrobat Pro can totally screw-up a PDF. The benefit to using a format that doesn't lend itself to editing is small file sizes. If you make PDF editing as easy as Word or Excel, then you will have Word and Excel document sizes.
Can we FINALLY edit the things like a normal text document then ?
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
I think the problem is obtuseness as to the appropriate use for the appropriate format. If you want to edit something, then edit the original document, not the generated PDF. Editing from PDFs is like editing video extracted from the distributed DVD. It can technically be done, but it's not ideal.
Can we FINALLY edit the things like a normal text document then ?
PDFS are not final. Never has there been a more confusing format for the film industry than there is from a pdf
And nothing has been MORE precise for the printing industry . Know what life was like before ? Bromides dude, eps files and postcript fonts everywhere. Seriously crap. Seriously what does hollywood use to write on ( toilet paper excluded
Making PDF an ISO standard should allow applications like Pages, Word, WordPerfect, AbiWord, KWrite, Mellel, etc. to create/open/modify a pdf document as easily as its own "native" format, correct? If so, would it make more sense to save to PDF than ODF due to the number of PDF readers out there?
PDF vs ODF are Apples vs Oranges.
It's analogous to Postscript vs. XML and it's many child languages.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
but still, i'm not a huge fan.
Pages and Numbers cannot import and otherwise load or modify PDFs. They can export to PDF.
I hope this means I can directly modify, save, and print PDF forms on Mac OS X in the near future without purchasing anything else.
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
Ok, but you understand the difference a source document and an output format, right? Editing a PDF is bit like doing optical character recognition on a fax, or scanning a page containing a photo from a magazine and airbrushing out the text rather than going to the photographer's original file. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
It's horses for courses. The whole point of sending someone a PDF is that it's the final output, you can be sure exactly how it looks and the recipient isn't going to prat about with it screwing up page breaks and so on. If you're supposed to edit the document, get the client to send it to you as a Word or Pages document!
-Rolf
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
Both Adobe Acrobat and Microsoft Word offer proper features and workflows for "Commenting" a document. You should really look into these.
It would require you and your client to own Acrobat Pro or Office whatever, but it is very easy to pass one file back and forth and to add "virtual post-it notes" to specific areas on the page or even to suggest changes and edits to specific sentences that the other can then approve or further modify.
* * *
As far as PDF becoming a working standard, that's never going to happen. I asked an Adobe Rep why InDesign didn't just save to the PDF format. He told me that PDFs get smaller by throwing away the "background structure" that other file types use to maintain editability. PDF is meant to be what is called a "Terminal Format" or "Delivery Format". Its the same reason you can't maintain editable layers and vector type in your GIF files even though you made them in Photoshop CS3.
i loathe pdf's. well. at least on windows. they dont load nearly as slow on macs (any more).
but still, i'm not a huge fan.
Then they are poorly made pdfs. They can load very fast or extremely slow, depending upon the author(s) of the document(s).
Ok, but you understand the difference a source document and an output format, right? Editing a PDF is bit like doing optical character recognition on a fax, or scanning a page containing a photo from a magazine and airbrushing out the text rather than going to the photographer's original file. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.
It's horses for courses. The whole point of sending someone a PDF is that it's the final output, you can be sure exactly how it looks and the recipient isn't going to prat about with it screwing up page breaks and so on. If you're supposed to edit the document, get the client to send it to you as a Word or Pages document!
-Rolf
From the original posters observations they don't know the difference.
I have never heard the word "customizability" and I am great at 'creating' new words!
Although your unique thinking has brighten my day, I think "customizable" or "customization" might have fit better?
Your not "strategery" with George Bush are you? (kidding, you know!)
I truly hope you're just joking. Customizability is a real word, not a "created" word and not unique thinking. Your alternatives mean very different things. The first is a noun meaning the amount of customization an item can have. "Customizable" is an adjective describing such an object. "Customization" is a noun, but it describes actual changes to that object.
If you are trying to make large scale edits to a pdf file you ? or someone around you ? does not have a clue what they are doing.
I truly hope you're just joking. Customizability is a real word, not a "created" word and not unique thinking. Your alternatives mean very different things. The first is a noun meaning the amount of customization an item can have. "Customizable" is an adjective describing such an object. "Customization" is a noun, but it describes actual changes to that object.
But what about the comment about Dubya (George Bush)? That seemed to be on target.
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
The sender was a moron. You output to PDF expressly to make changes HARDER and the appearance less platform dependent. The exact opposite of sending something for edits. Just send the damn source file, there's even one less step involved to do that!
Following in the wake of BruceLee, Skim is also a PDF commenting application, and it is free software. It won't change the actual file, but you can mark it up plenty good.
Call me when you have a client thats sending notes in a pdf format that is halfway across the world and barely reachable but you have so many hours to re edit the script , repeat.
Yeah it sounds stupid and it is. But people want to edit pdfs cause it looks and acts just like a text document. I don't care one way or the other, I just want apps like Pages to become common place.
Then you should not be getting your client to send you a script in pdf format if you are expected to edit it. You should only be sent the script or any document for that matter in pdf if the author has no intention of allowing you to edit it.
Scripts are written either in Microsoft Word or a specialised screenplay programme such as Final Draft (The industry standard) or Celtx (freeware), the script will be kept and edited within the applications own file format and only exported to pdf when finished. You should have Final Draft and have the scripts sent to you in that format.
Adobe probably retains a lot of PDF specialized functionality even after this standard is made ISO. There will still be a lot of Acrobat specific stuff like forms and scripting, PDF-X, 3D, conferencing and so forth. I'd be surprised if they gave up all of that. It will be interesting to find out exactly what aspects actually make it into the ISO spec.
Everything contained in the Adobe PDF 1.7 specification, as previously published by Adobe is now ISO 32000. Other standards that PDF references, from OpenType & TrueType, to XMP and U3D are still the province of those other standards and documents and are referenced by ISO 32000.
Leonard Rosenthol
PDF Standards Architect
Adobe Systems