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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #158998 > unrolled thread

print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 04:10 +0200
    Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2015-10-13 04:20 +0200
      Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 06:00 +0200
        Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 14:20 +0200
          Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Joseph Loo <jloo20111002@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 14:30 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 19:40 +0200
              Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Joseph Loo <jloo20111002@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 04:40 +0200
          Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-13 20:40 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 21:10 +0200
              Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-13 21:40 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Adrian O'Dell <crimsonmane@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 22:00 +0200
                  Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-13 23:00 +0200
                    Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 23:50 +0200
                      Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-14 00:30 +0200
                        Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:40 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Mario Castelán Castro <marioxcc.MT@yandex.com> - 2015-10-13 22:00 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 21:50 +0200
              Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:00 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 09:20 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 23:50 +0200
              Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:30 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:30 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-14 00:40 +0200
                Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 00:40 +0200
        Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> - 2015-10-13 16:50 +0200
    Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-13 04:30 +0200
      Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 06:20 +0200
        Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-10-13 06:20 +0200
          Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-13 07:50 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-13 09:40 +0200
            Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.id.au> - 2015-10-13 11:20 +0200
          Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-14 04:00 +0200
      Re: print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-13 09:30 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#158998 — print .tex or .dvi or .ps from Windows

I use LaTeX to create a .tex document file, then I use dvips to generate
a .ps file to send to my Postscript printer.

I would like to send a document file (.tex or .dvi or .ps) as an
email attachment to an associate so that he can print a copy and file
it.  There is no need for him to edit the file.  But my associate is
running Windows, and does not have a Postscript printer.

Is there a fool-proof solution to this need?  I have considered asking
my associate to install ghostscript, and I have considered purchasing
a Postscript printer for him.  I do not know which Windows
(XP, Vista, or 7) he is running.

Russ

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#158999

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> I would like to send a document file (.tex or .dvi or .ps) as an email
> attachment to an associate so that he can print a copy and file it.
> There is no need for him to edit the file. But my associate is running
> Windows, and does not have a Postscript printer.

Use ps2pdf or dvipdf or better, pdflatex, or even better, xelatex.

> Is there a fool-proof solution to this need? I have considered asking
> my associate to install ghostscript, and I have considered purchasing
> a Postscript printer for him. I do not know which Windows (XP, Vista,
> or 7) he is running.

Use PDF instead of PS. That's the fool-proof method, and you get the
advantages of the PDF specification.

[It's also probably time to move away from pdflatex to xelatex or
some other LaTeX engine with real utf8 support.]

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

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

#159003

On Mon, October 12, 2015 9:16 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Use PDF instead of PS. That's the fool-proof method, and you get the
> advantages of the PDF specification.
>
> [It's also probably time to move away from pdflatex to xelatex or
> some other LaTeX engine with real utf8 support.]

Thanks for bringing up the utf8 issue; I keep forgetting about it.

But is the PDF file I produce with whatever is in Jessie likely to be
readable by Windows XP or Vista?  I ask this because I have an older HP
laserjet which cannot decipher Postscript Level 3.

Russ

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

#159034

On Tuesday 13 October 2015 04:57:07 rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> On Mon, October 12, 2015 9:16 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Use PDF instead of PS. That's the fool-proof method, and you get the
> > advantages of the PDF specification.
> >
> > [It's also probably time to move away from pdflatex to xelatex or
> > some other LaTeX engine with real utf8 support.]
>
> Thanks for bringing up the utf8 issue; I keep forgetting about it.
>
> But is the PDF file I produce with whatever is in Jessie likely to be
> readable by Windows XP or Vista?  I ask this because I have an older HP
> laserjet which cannot decipher Postscript Level 3.

Surely the whole point of .pdf is that it is an open standard which 
is "universal"?  And it has traditionally been easier to make use of from 
Windows than from Linux.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format

Lisi

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

#159035

On 10/13/2015 05:12 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 04:57:07 rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
>> On Mon, October 12, 2015 9:16 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> Use PDF instead of PS. That's the fool-proof method, and you get the
>>> advantages of the PDF specification.
>>>
>>> [It's also probably time to move away from pdflatex to xelatex or
>>> some other LaTeX engine with real utf8 support.]
>>
>> Thanks for bringing up the utf8 issue; I keep forgetting about it.
>>
>> But is the PDF file I produce with whatever is in Jessie likely to be
>> readable by Windows XP or Vista?  I ask this because I have an older HP
>> laserjet which cannot decipher Postscript Level 3.
> 
> Surely the whole point of .pdf is that it is an open standard which 
> is "universal"?  And it has traditionally been easier to make use of from 
> Windows than from Linux.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
> 
> Lisi
> 
I am a little late in the discussion, but have you tried installing
ghostscript on your windows machine? It will convert ps and possibly pdf
to pcl or some other printers they have drivers for. It has been a long
time since I used it on windows.

-- 
Joseph Loo
jloo@acm.org

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

#159060

On Tue, October 13, 2015 7:26 am, Joseph Loo wrote:
> have you tried installing
> ghostscript on your windows machine? It will convert ps and possibly pdf to
> pcl or some other printers they have drivers for.

Ghostscript is one of the first solutions which occurred to me.  I found a
HOWTO, but it was too complex to give to my associate to follow.

And I found an article written about ten years ago which discussed the
problem of getting high-quality output when converting Postscript; much
depends upon the fonts used (scalable versus bit-mapped).  The discussion
was a bit deep, and, all things considered, it appeared to me that PDF
might be a better solution for my associate.  Also, most people know how
to read a PDF document, but may have difficulty sending a Postscript
document to the virtual Ghostscript printer; I myself am not sure how it
is done in Windows.

Russ

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

#159107

On 10/13/2015 10:34 AM, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> On Tue, October 13, 2015 7:26 am, Joseph Loo wrote:
>> have you tried installing
>> ghostscript on your windows machine? It will convert ps and possibly pdf to
>> pcl or some other printers they have drivers for.
> 
> Ghostscript is one of the first solutions which occurred to me.  I found a
> HOWTO, but it was too complex to give to my associate to follow.
> 
> And I found an article written about ten years ago which discussed the
> problem of getting high-quality output when converting Postscript; much
> depends upon the fonts used (scalable versus bit-mapped).  The discussion
> was a bit deep, and, all things considered, it appeared to me that PDF
> might be a better solution for my associate.  Also, most people know how
> to read a PDF document, but may have difficulty sending a Postscript
> document to the virtual Ghostscript printer; I myself am not sure how it
> is done in Windows.
> 
> Russ
> 
What you need is to down load ghostview at the same time. Use this gui
application to open the ps file. Have the program print the file. It can
use the default window drivers to print. I use to do this a lot but to
tell you the truth, it has been many years since getting it.

The ghostscrpt program will download 23 basic fonts for the different
printers. If you are using word, make sure the fonts embedded in the ps
files. You can print many different files with the full accuracy of the
ps file.

-- 
Joseph Loo
jloo@acm.org

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

#159064

On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 13:12:46 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:

> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 04:57:07 rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> > On Mon, October 12, 2015 9:16 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > Use PDF instead of PS. That's the fool-proof method, and you get the
> > > advantages of the PDF specification.
> > >
> > > [It's also probably time to move away from pdflatex to xelatex or
> > > some other LaTeX engine with real utf8 support.]
> >
> > Thanks for bringing up the utf8 issue; I keep forgetting about it.
> >
> > But is the PDF file I produce with whatever is in Jessie likely to be
> > readable by Windows XP or Vista?  I ask this because I have an older HP
> > laserjet which cannot decipher Postscript Level 3.
> 
> Surely the whole point of .pdf is that it is an open standard which 
> is "universal"?  And it has traditionally been easier to make use of from 
> Windows than from Linux.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format

Try downloading this document and reading it with mupdf (or a Linux
viewer of your choice).

  wget https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/373943/nrl1i.pdf

There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)

I have a clear recollection of your having met this and asking about it
on debian-user.

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

#159068

On Tue, October 13, 2015 1:37 pm, Brian wrote:
> There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)

You make a good point, which I overlooked.  My concern was that PDF might
have been "enhanced" over the years, similar to the enhancement of
Postscript by the introduction of Postscript levels 2 and 3.

Russ

"Windows is like the cat:  to understand it is to hate it."

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

#159069

On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 14:04:44 -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:

> On Tue, October 13, 2015 1:37 pm, Brian wrote:
> > There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> > standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
> 
> You make a good point, which I overlooked.  My concern was that PDF might
> have been "enhanced" over the years, similar to the enhancement of
> Postscript by the introduction of Postscript levels 2 and 3.

That wasn't quite my point, but it doesn't matter.

I receive .doc and .docx documents. The senders assume I can read them.
What do I do? Complain to them or just deal with it. Fortunately, Debian
makes it relatively easy to take the latter course of action. Why foul
up a relationship?

Now send a .dvi file to a Windows user. You will not hear the last of
it!

The advice you have had is good. Send as PDF; MS might like you to use
xps but its optional.

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

#159072

Never tell a business partner to change.

On 10/13/2015 02:45 PM, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> El 13/10/15 a las 14:38, Brian escribió:
>> On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 14:04:44 -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, October 13, 2015 1:37 pm, Brian wrote:
>>>> There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to 
>>>> the
>>>> standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
>>>
>>> You make a good point, which I overlooked.  My concern was that PDF 
>>> might
>>> have been "enhanced" over the years, similar to the enhancement of
>>> Postscript by the introduction of Postscript levels 2 and 3.
>>
>> That wasn't quite my point, but it doesn't matter.
>>
>> I receive .doc and .docx documents. The senders assume I can read them.
>> What do I do? Complain to them or just deal with it. Fortunately, Debian
>> makes it relatively easy to take the latter course of action. Why foul
>> up a relationship?
>
> It's a good opportunity to educate those senders about the importance 
> of free formats. If we want people to adopt free software more, we 
> should work for it, making people aware of the problems of proprietary 
> software and its formats, and advice them to switch to free software.
>

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

#159078

El 13/10/15 a las 14:55, Adrian O'Dell escribió:
> Never tell a business partner to change.

One of the problems of society is that it is driven by economic 
interests, and more often than not, the interests which govern behavior 
are those of megacorporations (employers) instead of individuals. We 
should resist corporate control. That means, among other things, 
resisting the pressure of proprietary software developers.

You may find yourself in a situation where you are muzzled of 
complaining about things that you disagree with (because they *are* in 
fact wrong) because of your job but that is just a symptom, the sickness 
is that you have a bad job. The real way to fix that is to no to *place 
yourself* in such a position where taking such a job *appears 
necessary*; it is a matter of planning and making a conscious *effort*.

Regards.

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

#159082

On Tuesday 13 October 2015 21:52:02 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> El 13/10/15 a las 14:55, Adrian O'Dell escribió:
> > Never tell a business partner to change.
>
> One of the problems of society is that it is driven by economic
> interests, and more often than not, the interests which govern behavior
> are those of megacorporations (employers) instead of individuals. We
> should resist corporate control. That means, among other things,
> resisting the pressure of proprietary software developers.
>
> You may find yourself in a situation where you are muzzled of
> complaining about things that you disagree with (because they *are* in
> fact wrong) because of your job but that is just a symptom, the sickness
> is that you have a bad job. The real way to fix that is to no to *place
> yourself* in such a position where taking such a job *appears
> necessary*; it is a matter of planning and making a conscious *effort*.

And letting your children go hungry if necessary.  Principles matter more.

Lisi

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

#159086

El 13/10/15 a las 16:42, Lisi Reisz escribió:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 21:52:02 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>> El 13/10/15 a las 14:55, Adrian O'Dell escribió:
>>> Never tell a business partner to change.
>>
>> One of the problems of society is that it is driven by economic
>> interests, and more often than not, the interests which govern behavior
>> are those of megacorporations (employers) instead of individuals. We
>> should resist corporate control. That means, among other things,
>> resisting the pressure of proprietary software developers.
>>
>> You may find yourself in a situation where you are muzzled of
>> complaining about things that you disagree with (because they *are* in
>> fact wrong) because of your job but that is just a symptom, the sickness
>> is that you have a bad job. The real way to fix that is to no to *place
>> yourself* in such a position where taking such a job *appears
>> necessary*; it is a matter of planning and making a conscious *effort*.
>
> And letting your children go hungry if necessary.  Principles matter more.
>
> Lisi

Having children in the first place when one is subject to a muzzling or 
otherwise abusive job is a *perfect example of what I am talking about*. 
People usually reason backwards in examples like this: First they 
*chose* to have children, then they "justify" something questionable to 
themselves or to somebody else with the excuse that they have children, 
as if it was some fact of life like having to eat or breathe, while in 
fact, that is no justification, because whoever does this has put 
himself by his own decision into the situation where he "has" to do that 
questionable activity in the first place, and therefore has chosen to do 
that questionable activity (or is guilt of doing without thinking).

Regards.

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

#159092

On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 17:23:22 -0500, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:

> El 13/10/15 a las 16:42, Lisi Reisz escribió:
> >On Tuesday 13 October 2015 21:52:02 Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
> >>El 13/10/15 a las 14:55, Adrian O'Dell escribió:
> >>>Never tell a business partner to change.
> >>
> >>One of the problems of society is that it is driven by economic
> >>interests, and more often than not, the interests which govern behavior
> >>are those of megacorporations (employers) instead of individuals. We
> >>should resist corporate control. That means, among other things,
> >>resisting the pressure of proprietary software developers.
> >>
> >>You may find yourself in a situation where you are muzzled of
> >>complaining about things that you disagree with (because they *are* in
> >>fact wrong) because of your job but that is just a symptom, the sickness
> >>is that you have a bad job. The real way to fix that is to no to *place
> >>yourself* in such a position where taking such a job *appears
> >>necessary*; it is a matter of planning and making a conscious *effort*.
> >
> >And letting your children go hungry if necessary.  Principles matter more.
> >
> >Lisi
> 
> Having children in the first place when one is subject to a muzzling or
> otherwise abusive job is a *perfect example of what I am talking about*.
> People usually reason backwards in examples like this: First they *chose* to
> have children, then they "justify" something questionable to themselves or
> to somebody else with the excuse that they have children, as if it was some
> fact of life like having to eat or breathe, while in fact, that is no
> justification, because whoever does this has put himself by his own decision
> into the situation where he "has" to do that questionable activity in the
> first place, and therefore has chosen to do that questionable activity (or
> is guilt of doing without thinking).

Good argumentation. Are we due for an in depth discussion on cognitive
dissonance?

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

#159073

El 13/10/15 a las 14:38, Brian escribió:
> On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 14:04:44 -0500, rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, October 13, 2015 1:37 pm, Brian wrote:
>>> There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
>>> standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
>>
>> You make a good point, which I overlooked.  My concern was that PDF might
>> have been "enhanced" over the years, similar to the enhancement of
>> Postscript by the introduction of Postscript levels 2 and 3.
>
> That wasn't quite my point, but it doesn't matter.
>
> I receive .doc and .docx documents. The senders assume I can read them.
> What do I do? Complain to them or just deal with it. Fortunately, Debian
> makes it relatively easy to take the latter course of action. Why foul
> up a relationship?

It's a good opportunity to educate those senders about the importance of 
free formats. If we want people to adopt free software more, we should 
work for it, making people aware of the problems of proprietary software 
and its formats, and advice them to switch to free software.

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

#159071

	Hi.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:37:34 +0100
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 13:12:46 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2015 04:57:07 rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> > > On Mon, October 12, 2015 9:16 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > Use PDF instead of PS. That's the fool-proof method, and you get the
> > > > advantages of the PDF specification.
> > > >
> > > > [It's also probably time to move away from pdflatex to xelatex or
> > > > some other LaTeX engine with real utf8 support.]
> > >
> > > Thanks for bringing up the utf8 issue; I keep forgetting about it.
> > >
> > > But is the PDF file I produce with whatever is in Jessie likely to be
> > > readable by Windows XP or Vista?  I ask this because I have an older HP
> > > laserjet which cannot decipher Postscript Level 3.
> > 
> > Surely the whole point of .pdf is that it is an open standard which 
> > is "universal"?  And it has traditionally been easier to make use of from 
> > Windows than from Linux.
> > 
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
> 
> Try downloading this document and reading it with mupdf (or a Linux
> viewer of your choice).
> 
>   wget https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/373943/nrl1i.pdf
> 
> There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)

Or, in this particular case, not all PDF viewers conform to the
standard. Embedding Javascript (or, $DEITY forbid, Flash) into PDF was
possible since PDF 1.5 IIRC, and embedded Javascript (or rather, lack
of support of) is the reason that this particular PDF should only show
meaningless "Upgrade your Acrobat Reader" page in anything other than
Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Why would anyone actually *want* Javascript and Flash support in a
*PDF* viewer is entirely different topic.

Reco

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

#159083

On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 22:40:24 +0300, Reco wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:37:34 +0100
> Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > Try downloading this document and reading it with mupdf (or a Linux
> > viewer of your choice).
> > 
> >   wget https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/373943/nrl1i.pdf
> > 
> > There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> > standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
> 
> Or, in this particular case, not all PDF viewers conform to the
> standard. Embedding Javascript (or, $DEITY forbid, Flash) into PDF was
> possible since PDF 1.5 IIRC, and embedded Javascript (or rather, lack
> of support of) is the reason that this particular PDF should only show
> meaningless "Upgrade your Acrobat Reader" page in anything other than
> Adobe Acrobat Reader.

The PDF contains Adobe XML Forms Architecture (XFA), a proprietary and
non-ISO implementation. What standard do Linux viewers have to adopt to
view it?

Not all PDFs are created equal.

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

#159128

	Hi.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:54:01 +0100
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 22:40:24 +0300, Reco wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:37:34 +0100
> > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Try downloading this document and reading it with mupdf (or a Linux
> > > viewer of your choice).
> > > 
> > >   wget https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/373943/nrl1i.pdf
> > > 
> > > There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> > > standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)
> > 
> > Or, in this particular case, not all PDF viewers conform to the
> > standard. Embedding Javascript (or, $DEITY forbid, Flash) into PDF was
> > possible since PDF 1.5 IIRC, and embedded Javascript (or rather, lack
> > of support of) is the reason that this particular PDF should only show
> > meaningless "Upgrade your Acrobat Reader" page in anything other than
> > Adobe Acrobat Reader.
> 
> The PDF contains Adobe XML Forms Architecture (XFA), a proprietary and
> non-ISO implementation. What standard do Linux viewers have to adopt to
> view it?

The lack of standards in a respective area did not stop OpenOffice
project (or Gnash, or Samba) back in the day.

Whenever libpoppler (or xpdf, or mupdf) should support XFA is a
different story.

> Not all PDFs are created equal.

True.

Reco

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

#159081

On Tuesday 13 October 2015 19:37:34 Brian wrote:
> On Tue 13 Oct 2015 at 13:12:46 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 October 2015 04:57:07 rlharris@oplink.net wrote:
> > > On Mon, October 12, 2015 9:16 pm, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > > Use PDF instead of PS. That's the fool-proof method, and you get the
> > > > advantages of the PDF specification.
> > > >
> > > > [It's also probably time to move away from pdflatex to xelatex or
> > > > some other LaTeX engine with real utf8 support.]
> > >
> > > Thanks for bringing up the utf8 issue; I keep forgetting about it.
> > >
> > > But is the PDF file I produce with whatever is in Jessie likely to be
> > > readable by Windows XP or Vista?  I ask this because I have an older HP
> > > laserjet which cannot decipher Postscript Level 3.
> >
> > Surely the whole point of .pdf is that it is an open standard which
> > is "universal"?  And it has traditionally been easier to make use of from
> > Windows than from Linux.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
>
> Try downloading this document and reading it with mupdf (or a Linux
> viewer of your choice).
>
>   wget
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3
>73943/nrl1i.pdf
>
> There may be an ISO standard for a PDF but not all PDF's conform to the
> standard. Don't forget: standards are good; everyone can have one. :)

:-)  

> I have a clear recollection of your having met this and asking about it
> on debian-user.

Yes, but it is usually soluble, and anyway, I thought that pdf was easier from 
Windows.  It used to be.  But I haven't used Windows for a very long time, so 
I may easily be wrong.

Lisi

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web