Re: [tdf-discuss] New "LibreOffice Reader" Eliminates Need for "PDF Reader"

On 2011-06-24, Andrea Pescetti wrote:

> Marc Paré wrote:
> > if we were to promote a "quick and dirty" 
> > "LibreOffice Reader", very much like the "Adobe Acrobat Reader", whose 
> > sole purpose is to provide the ability to "read" ".odt" files, there 
> > would be no need to carry .pdf formatted files.

Heh. :-) Don't use Adobe Reader as an example of a "reader", use
instead some other PDF reader with a reasonable memory and disk space
footprint. (Unless that's what you meant by "quick and dirty".)

> This, however, won't work. Document fidelity is not the aim of ODT
> files, while it is the aim of PDF files (example: font embedding, but
> one could find many more). Replacing PDF by ODT is just not feasible due
> to the formats themselves, not to the lack of an "ODF Reader".

Font embedding is an issue, it could render the viewer useless.

It's possible, at least, to make some room for "compatible documents",
by shipping a set of fonts with the viewer and announcing that as the
"standard fonts" for ODF viewer.

Unless there's some required feature of ODT that's not possible to
reproduce in PDF, I suggest keeping with PDF for now: it is designed for
portability and it's vectorial, so there's no loss.


Someone suggested djvu (DeJaVU). I like djvu, I use it and I and spread
the word about it, but IMHO it's main use is for scanned documents
(making it so entire books can fit in a floppy!). 

Even if a pdf is larger than a djvu for the same document, if it was
directly exported to pdf, it's vectorial. Converting to djvu makes it
raster. IMHO that's a bad idea. YMMV.

-- 
Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg)
gopher://sdf-eu.org/1/users/njsg

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted