Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235562 > unrolled thread

Question re postscript and pdf

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-10 19:57 +0200
    Re: Question re postscript and pdf usenet@spuddy.org (Stephen Harris) - 2026-09-11 08:09 -0400
      Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-11 14:44 +0200
    Re: Question re postscript and pdf magardner2010 <magardner2010@gmail.com> - 2026-09-11 15:24 +0300
      Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-11 14:42 +0200
      Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-12 02:21 +0000
        Re: Question re postscript and pdf Ian <${send-direct-email-to-news1021-at-jusme-dot-com-if-you-must}@jusme.com> - 2026-09-12 07:32 +0000
          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 11:07 +0100
            Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-12 13:20 +0200
              Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 12:52 +0100
          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:16 +0000
            Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 13:42 +0200
              Re: Question re postscript and pdf James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-13 13:03 +0000
                Re: Question re postscript and pdf Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-13 07:33 -0700
                Re: Question re postscript and pdf John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-09-13 14:50 +0000
                Re: Question re postscript and pdf "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-13 19:09 +0200
                Re: Question re postscript and pdf antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-14 16:22 +0000
                  Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-15 10:41 +0100
                    Re: Question re postscript and pdf Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-15 07:41 -0700
                      Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-16 00:23 +0100
                      Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-15 23:25 +0000
                        Re: Question re postscript and pdf Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-09-15 20:07 -0700
                          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-16 04:17 +0000
                            Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-16 11:41 +0100
                              Re: Question re postscript and pdf Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-16 08:02 -0700
                            Re: Question re postscript and pdf Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2026-09-16 14:41 -0700
                              Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-17 01:56 +0000
                                Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-17 10:27 +0100
                        About OO vs LO "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-16 09:19 +0200
                          Re: About OO vs LO Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-16 07:48 +0000
                            Re: About OO vs LO "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-09-16 11:57 +0200
                        Re: Question re postscript and pdf Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-09-16 07:55 -0700
                          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-16 16:22 +0000
                          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-17 01:57 +0000
                          Re: Question re postscript and pdf Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-18 17:35 -0400
        Re: Question re postscript and pdf Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-12 10:59 +0100
        Re: Question re postscript and pdf antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-09-14 16:08 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#235562 — Question re postscript and pdf

Hi,

As I see you talking about postscript, I want to pop a question that 
might be a bit offtopic, as it is about modern computing.

context: Linux

Printers talked postscript. Now I hear they talk PDF. I know that it is 
trivial to convert from ps to pdf. Do programs that want to print 
generate the PDF directly, or do they generate the ps and then convert 
it to pdf?

It also occurs to me to ask what is the advantage for printers of 
talking pdf instead of ps.

Thanks :-)

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#235570

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> Printers talked postscript. Now I hear they talk PDF. I know that it is 
> trivial to convert from ps to pdf. Do programs that want to print 
> generate the PDF directly, or do they generate the ps and then convert 
> it to pdf?

Neither.  Programs shouldn't care what format the printer can handle. 
That's up to the cups printer driver, to take in what the program
generates and convert it to what the printer can deal with.

But I suspect any printer that can handle PDF can also handle postscript
(and plain text and probably PCL) so it's not "PDF or PS" but "PDF and
PS".

Heh, the HP LJ MFP-4301fdw claims "HP PCL 6, HP PCL 5e, HP PCL 5c, HP
Postscript level 3 emulation, PDF, URF, PWG Raster, Native Office"

> It also occurs to me to ask what is the advantage for printers of 
> talking pdf instead of ps.

I suspect more for printing from mobile devices; PDFs are common (eg
bank statements) so someone who is "phone first" may download a PDF
document on their phone, view it, print wirelessly.  But even with
firefox on Linux, printing may generate a PDF (I just disabled the
queue, did a test print, saw it was a PDF in the queue).

-- 
                                 Stephen  Harris
                                usenet@spuddy.org
      The truth is the truth, and opinion just opinion.  But what is what?
       My employer paid to ignore my opinions; you get to do it for free.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235574

On 2026-09-11 14:09, Stephen Harris wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> Printers talked postscript. Now I hear they talk PDF. I know that it is
>> trivial to convert from ps to pdf. Do programs that want to print
>> generate the PDF directly, or do they generate the ps and then convert
>> it to pdf?
> 
> Neither.  Programs shouldn't care what format the printer can handle.
> That's up to the cups printer driver, to take in what the program
> generates and convert it to what the printer can deal with.

AFAIK programs submit ps or pdf to cups.

Years ago, LO sent ps; so sait the pinter properties dialog. Now it 
sends PDF, and when I notice I click so that it sends ps instead, 
because my current printer does not talk pdf and it would be one extra 
useless conversion.

> 
> But I suspect any printer that can handle PDF can also handle postscript
> (and plain text and probably PCL) so it's not "PDF or PS" but "PDF and
> PS".
> 
> Heh, the HP LJ MFP-4301fdw claims "HP PCL 6, HP PCL 5e, HP PCL 5c, HP
> Postscript level 3 emulation, PDF, URF, PWG Raster, Native Office"
> 
>> It also occurs to me to ask what is the advantage for printers of
>> talking pdf instead of ps.
> 
> I suspect more for printing from mobile devices; PDFs are common (eg
> bank statements) so someone who is "phone first" may download a PDF
> document on their phone, view it, print wirelessly.  But even with
> firefox on Linux, printing may generate a PDF (I just disabled the
> queue, did a test print, saw it was a PDF in the queue).

Ah.


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235571

On 10/09/2026 20:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
 > [...] I know that it is
 > trivial to convert from ps to pdf. [...]

To my understanding, it's actually the other way round. PDF is, or at 
least was, a wrapper format around a subset of postscript. To get 
equivalent postscript, you just need to unwrap the postscript, and give 
it the extra stuff the pdf contains (like images or fonts) in a way it 
understands. To convert arbitrary postscript into a PDF, you need to 
rewrite the postscript to only use the non Turing-complete subset 
allowed in pdf, which I could see running into the halting problem and 
other fun stuff. However, once you do have the final result of the 
postscript execution, the pdf wrapping is indeed quite simple, with the 
most complicated bit being the cross-reference index that is "just" 
counting how many bytes away each object is from the beginning of the file.

 > It also occurs to me to ask what is the advantage for printers of
 > talking pdf instead of ps.

The big one I know is that PDF is not Turing complete, while PS is. You 
don't want your printer running infinite loops or memory bombs or 
similar. A malicious postscript document doesn't need a buggy postscript 
interpreter to do it's dirty work, a malicious pdf needs to cause the 
interpreter to misbehave to do any damage.

 > Thanks :-)
 >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235572

On 2026-09-11 14:24, magardner2010 wrote:
> On 10/09/2026 20:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>  > [...] I know that it is
>  > trivial to convert from ps to pdf. [...]
> 
> To my understanding, it's actually the other way round. PDF is, or at 
> least was, a wrapper format around a subset of postscript. To get 
> equivalent postscript, you just need to unwrap the postscript, and give 
> it the extra stuff the pdf contains (like images or fonts) in a way it 
> understands. To convert arbitrary postscript into a PDF, you need to 
> rewrite the postscript to only use the non Turing-complete subset 
> allowed in pdf, which I could see running into the halting problem and 
> other fun stuff. However, once you do have the final result of the 
> postscript execution, the pdf wrapping is indeed quite simple, with the 
> most complicated bit being the cross-reference index that is "just" 
> counting how many bytes away each object is from the beginning of the file.
> 
>  > It also occurs to me to ask what is the advantage for printers of
>  > talking pdf instead of ps.
> 
> The big one I know is that PDF is not Turing complete, while PS is. You 
> don't want your printer running infinite loops or memory bombs or 
> similar. A malicious postscript document doesn't need a buggy postscript 
> interpreter to do it's dirty work, a malicious pdf needs to cause the 
> interpreter to misbehave to do any damage.

Oh, that's interesting.



-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235587

On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:24:23 +0300, magardner2010 wrote:

> To convert arbitrary postscript into a PDF, you need to rewrite the
> postscript to only use the non Turing-complete subset allowed in
> pdf, which I could see running into the halting problem and other
> fun stuff.

Adobe had a product called “Distiller” which did this. You ran a
custom wrapper program on a PostScript interpreter, which I think
intercepted all the actual rendering calls and output corresponding
PDF objects instead.

> The big one I know is that PDF is not Turing complete, while PS is.
> You don't want your printer running infinite loops or memory bombs
> or similar. A malicious postscript document doesn't need a buggy
> postscript interpreter to do it's dirty work, a malicious pdf needs
> to cause the interpreter to misbehave to do any damage.

Basically, no variables, and no loops or other control constructs. So
there is a one-to-one correspondence between objects in the page
definition and objects on the page rendition.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235588

On 2026-09-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:24:23 +0300, magardner2010 wrote:
>
>> To convert arbitrary postscript into a PDF, you need to rewrite the
>> postscript to only use the non Turing-complete subset allowed in
>> pdf, which I could see running into the halting problem and other
>> fun stuff.
>
> Adobe had a product called “Distiller” which did this. You ran a
> custom wrapper program on a PostScript interpreter, which I think
> intercepted all the actual rendering calls and output corresponding
> PDF objects instead.
>
>> The big one I know is that PDF is not Turing complete, while PS is.
>> You don't want your printer running infinite loops or memory bombs
>> or similar. A malicious postscript document doesn't need a buggy
>> postscript interpreter to do it's dirty work, a malicious pdf needs
>> to cause the interpreter to misbehave to do any damage.
>
> Basically, no variables, and no loops or other control constructs. So
> there is a one-to-one correspondence between objects in the page
> definition and objects on the page rendition.

...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF


-- 
Ian

"Tamahome!!!" - "Miaka!!!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235590

On 2026-09-12, Ian wrote:

> On 2026-09-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:24:23 +0300, magardner2010 wrote:
>>
>>> To convert arbitrary postscript into a PDF, you need to rewrite the
>>> postscript to only use the non Turing-complete subset allowed in
>>> pdf, which I could see running into the halting problem and other
>>> fun stuff.
>>
>> Adobe had a product called “Distiller” which did this. You ran a
>> custom wrapper program on a PostScript interpreter, which I think
>> intercepted all the actual rendering calls and output corresponding
>> PDF objects instead.
>>
>>> The big one I know is that PDF is not Turing complete, while PS is.
>>> You don't want your printer running infinite loops or memory bombs
>>> or similar. A malicious postscript document doesn't need a buggy
>>> postscript interpreter to do it's dirty work, a malicious pdf needs
>>> to cause the interpreter to misbehave to do any damage.
>>
>> Basically, no variables, and no loops or other control constructs. So
>> there is a one-to-one correspondence between objects in the page
>> definition and objects on the page rendition.
>
> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF

This being Adobe, I guess we're lucky they didn't push for e.g. wide use
of Shockwave Flash as part of PDF or something... or that you don't need
a Pantone™®© license to see colors...

I can imagine it: "oh sorry your document made the printer run out of
toner because your Pantone White background requires a Pantone license
so it printed as a black page"...

(Cf. <https://merveilles.town/@prahou/117216842053638207> for Adobe
Photoshop)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235591

On 2026-09-12 12:07, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-09-12, Ian wrote:
> 
>> On 2026-09-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:24:23 +0300, magardner2010 wrote:
>>>
>>>> To convert arbitrary postscript into a PDF, you need to rewrite the
>>>> postscript to only use the non Turing-complete subset allowed in
>>>> pdf, which I could see running into the halting problem and other
>>>> fun stuff.
>>>
>>> Adobe had a product called “Distiller” which did this. You ran a
>>> custom wrapper program on a PostScript interpreter, which I think
>>> intercepted all the actual rendering calls and output corresponding
>>> PDF objects instead.
>>>
>>>> The big one I know is that PDF is not Turing complete, while PS is.
>>>> You don't want your printer running infinite loops or memory bombs
>>>> or similar. A malicious postscript document doesn't need a buggy
>>>> postscript interpreter to do it's dirty work, a malicious pdf needs
>>>> to cause the interpreter to misbehave to do any damage.
>>>
>>> Basically, no variables, and no loops or other control constructs. So
>>> there is a one-to-one correspondence between objects in the page
>>> definition and objects on the page rendition.
>>
>> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
> 
> This being Adobe, I guess we're lucky they didn't push for e.g. wide use
> of Shockwave Flash as part of PDF or something... or that you don't need
> a Pantone™®© license to see colors...
> 
> I can imagine it: "oh sorry your document made the printer run out of
> toner because your Pantone White background requires a Pantone license
> so it printed as a black page"...
> 
> (Cf. <https://merveilles.town/@prahou/117216842053638207> for Adobe
> Photoshop)

I had a printing system failure the other day, and after some minutes a 
page printed fully in black. I think the root of the problem was that 
/etc/hosts file was empty.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235592

On 2026-09-12, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2026-09-12 12:07, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> On 2026-09-12, Ian wrote:
>>
>>> On 2026-09-12, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2026 15:24:23 +0300, magardner2010 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To convert arbitrary postscript into a PDF, you need to rewrite the
>>>>> postscript to only use the non Turing-complete subset allowed in
>>>>> pdf, which I could see running into the halting problem and other
>>>>> fun stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Adobe had a product called “Distiller” which did this. You ran a
>>>> custom wrapper program on a PostScript interpreter, which I think
>>>> intercepted all the actual rendering calls and output corresponding
>>>> PDF objects instead.
>>>>
>>>>> The big one I know is that PDF is not Turing complete, while PS is.
>>>>> You don't want your printer running infinite loops or memory bombs
>>>>> or similar. A malicious postscript document doesn't need a buggy
>>>>> postscript interpreter to do it's dirty work, a malicious pdf needs
>>>>> to cause the interpreter to misbehave to do any damage.
>>>>
>>>> Basically, no variables, and no loops or other control constructs. So
>>>> there is a one-to-one correspondence between objects in the page
>>>> definition and objects on the page rendition.
>>>
>>> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
>>
>> This being Adobe, I guess we're lucky they didn't push for e.g. wide use
>> of Shockwave Flash as part of PDF or something... or that you don't need
>> a Pantone™®© license to see colors...
>>
>> I can imagine it: "oh sorry your document made the printer run out of
>> toner because your Pantone White background requires a Pantone license
>> so it printed as a black page"...
>>
>> (Cf. <https://merveilles.town/@prahou/117216842053638207> for Adobe
>> Photoshop)
>
> I had a printing system failure the other day, and after some minutes
> a page printed fully in black. I think the root of the problem was
> that /etc/hosts file was empty.

The one time I did this was when I had files modified for on-screen
reading by inverting the colors. A hack that only worked for some files,
in PostScript.

Or maybe it was gv with default colors for screen reading (so light on
black)? I forget which, it probably was the former.

So, one day I printed a document and had to cancel it, as it was
printing the *inverted* version...

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235601

On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:32:15 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:

> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF

That’s not in the ISO32000 spec, as far as I know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235602

On 2026-09-13 10:16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:32:15 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
> 
>> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
> 
> That’s not in the ISO32000 spec, as far as I know.

It is an adobe extension an only them support it.
Mozilla is trying, but results are not good.

Governments use those documents in interactive forms.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235603

"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> posted:

> On 2026-09-13 10:16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:32:15 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
> > 
> >> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
> > 
> > That’s not in the ISO32000 spec, as far as I know.
> 
> It is an adobe extension an only them support it.
> Mozilla is trying, but results are not good.
> 
> Governments use those documents in interactive forms.
>

With good free alternatives, I've always thought that
government mandating pay-to-play formats like MS Word and PDF
is inappropriate.  Am I wrong? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235604

On 9/13/26 06:03, James Dow Allen wrote:
> 
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> posted:
> 
>> On 2026-09-13 10:16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:32:15 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
>>>
>>> That’s not in the ISO32000 spec, as far as I know.
>>
>> It is an adobe extension an only them support it.
>> Mozilla is trying, but results are not good.
>>
>> Governments use those documents in interactive forms.
>>
> 
> With good free alternatives, I've always thought that
> government mandating pay-to-play formats like MS Word and PDF
> is inappropriate.  Am I wrong?

Nope. The US government just sucks up to Microsoft.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235606

According to James Dow Allen  <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid>:
>
>"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> posted:
>
>> On 2026-09-13 10:16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:32:15 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
>> > 
>> >> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
>> > 
>> > That’s not in the ISO32000 spec, as far as I know.

See ECMAScript for PDF 2.0 = ISO 21757

>With good free alternatives, I've always thought that
>government mandating pay-to-play formats like MS Word and PDF
>is inappropriate.  Am I wrong? 

Word format is ISO/IEC 29500.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235609

On 2026-09-13 15:03, James Dow Allen wrote:
> 
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> posted:
> 
>> On 2026-09-13 10:16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:32:15 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
>>>
>>> That’s not in the ISO32000 spec, as far as I know.
>>
>> It is an adobe extension an only them support it.
>> Mozilla is trying, but results are not good.
>>
>> Governments use those documents in interactive forms.
>>
> 
> With good free alternatives, I've always thought that
> government mandating pay-to-play formats like MS Word and PDF
> is inappropriate.  Am I wrong?

What good free alternatives?

What I see them doing is web pages with forms to fill, and data saved in 
their cloud. That works on any computer that runs a modern supported web 
browser.

I had to hire a firm to do those PDF filling for me. They were already 
complicated to do, anyway.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235628

James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
> 
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> posted:
> 
>> On 2026-09-13 10:16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:32:15 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
>> > 
>> >> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
>> > 
>> > That’s not in the ISO32000 spec, as far as I know.
>> 
>> It is an adobe extension an only them support it.
>> Mozilla is trying, but results are not good.
>> 
>> Governments use those documents in interactive forms.
>>
> 
> With good free alternatives, I've always thought that
> government mandating pay-to-play formats like MS Word and PDF
> is inappropriate.  Am I wrong? 

I did not look at recent specs, but PDF spec was freely available
and IIUC put no restricions on use.  I was able to implement
my little PDF processing utility working from the spec.  And
there were several free implementations of viewers and
associated tools.  I certainly can do "full" PDF flow, that
is create them, view, convert to bitmaps, add some annotations
using only free tools.   That is quite different from MS Word.

The PDF forms extention may be an exception.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235636

On 2026-09-14, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

> James Dow Allen <user4353@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> posted:
>> 
>>> On 2026-09-13 10:16, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> > On Sat, 12 Sep 2026 07:32:15 -0000 (UTC), Ian wrote:
>>> > 
>>> >> ...then some idiot decided to allow javascript in PDF
>>> > 
>>> > That’s not in the ISO32000 spec, as far as I know.
>>> 
>>> It is an adobe extension an only them support it.
>>> Mozilla is trying, but results are not good.
>>> 
>>> Governments use those documents in interactive forms.
>>>
>> 
>> With good free alternatives, I've always thought that
>> government mandating pay-to-play formats like MS Word and PDF
>> is inappropriate.  Am I wrong? 
>
> I did not look at recent specs, but PDF spec was freely available
> and IIUC put no restricions on use.  I was able to implement
> my little PDF processing utility working from the spec.  And
> there were several free implementations of viewers and
> associated tools.  I certainly can do "full" PDF flow, that
> is create them, view, convert to bitmaps, add some annotations
> using only free tools.   That is quite different from MS Word.

The Office Open XML standard(s) were a response to the push that tried
to promote ODF and other open formats on grounds that they were
standards (or at least that seemed to be invoked too).

Of course Microsoft was found to have a spec that didn't exactly match
the implementation, and also proceeded to have the standard approved
with shady practices (like people being refused to attend
standardization meetings because of "lack of chairs").

In the end, it's probably a useless standard, existing only for the
purpose of saying Office Open XML is standardized.

(And given they gave a guy called Mike Rowe hell for naming his site
and/or company "Mike Rowe Soft", they should probably have been barred
from calling it "Office Open"...)

What really matters is a decent spec, that matches the implementation,
and that is freely accessible and usable, and having at least one
compliant implementation that is FLOSS is probably not a bad idea as a
requirement.

Base PDF is probably different in that, it not being from Microsoft, may
actually have an accurate spec and may be not a futile (to everyone
else) exercise in pretending there is openness.

> The PDF forms extention may be an exception.

(No idea, it's not something I have personal experience with or where
I've done sufficient research.)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235640

On 9/15/26 02:41, Nuno Silva wrote:
> 
> The Office Open XML standard(s) were a response to the push that tried
> to promote ODF and other open formats on grounds that they were
> standards (or at least that seemed to be invoked too).

Just say no. I only use OO. Of course I don't have a corporate IT 
department bribed by Microsoft trying to declare their stuff as a 
standard. People (mostly in Europe ATM) are starting to catch on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235646

On 2026-09-15, Peter Flass wrote:

> On 9/15/26 02:41, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>
>> The Office Open XML standard(s) were a response to the push that tried
>> to promote ODF and other open formats on grounds that they were
>> standards (or at least that seemed to be invoked too).
>
> Just say no. I only use OO. Of course I don't have a corporate IT
> department bribed by Microsoft trying to declare their stuff as a
> standard. People (mostly in Europe ATM) are starting to catch on.

I'm not sure - there seems to be a state of affairs now that's much
worse than it was a decade or more ago. Back then, being a Microsoft
shop/workplace/organization/... meant you had Active Directory, Exchange
for mail and Windows machines galore.

Nowadays it seems to mean the organization signed a contract passing a
bunch of essential services to Microsoft's own premises in cloud-based
offerings.

So now the arguments to defend some silly arrangements might be that
whatever is found needs to duplicate that - even if the cloud-based
services are not that useful or are even counter-productive.

Funnily, this may also make LibreOffice gain a footing: besides "no AI
features", they can now perhaps more easily stand out with "you can
install this and use it with no need for a network connection!".

Who would think such a mundane thing from the late 90s could look like a
premium feature in the 2020s...

Also, you can use whatever colors you want and you don't risk your
document losing colors or becoming black because Adobe had or has some
deal with some company that somehow managed to trick the USPTO into
letting them patent color names?

(... hey, how come Pantone is not owned by Oracle?)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web