4 ms·
Except for many, it doesen't. Why glorify a closed format that we spent decades trying to aviod just because its common now? The inherent issues persist.
by whenchamenia 7y ago
Except for many, it doesen't. Why glorify a closed format that we spent decades trying to aviod just because its common now? The inherent issues persist.
- boshomi 7y agosince ISO 32000-2 there is no proprietary technology included[1] [1] https://www.iso.org/standard/63534.html https://www.iso.org/standard/63534.html
- throwaway2048 7y agoNot all PDFs are standards compliant, plenty are filled with acrobat only JS, embedded flash and form filling crap.
- semi-extrinsic 7y agoAs e.g. the fine men and women of Int. J. POC||GTFO have demonstrated, it's possible to embed all sorts of weird and wonderful things in a PDF. I think a format where it's possible to include as much as possible is better. Just look at HTML. Would you rather have it be impossible to extend beyond text, images and stylesheets?
- na85 7y agoI would. The modern web is a rich-get-richer hellscape of surveillance and advertising.
- jimjimjim 7y agohtml can include acrobat only JS and embedded flash and form filling crap.
- icxa 7y agoForm filling is part of the standard, specifically, the process of applying an XFDF to a PDF, which even allows you to do things like present a remote web form and then inject the data into the PDF.
- starsinspace 7y agoPDF has been released as an open standard since 2008.
- thro_away_n 7y ago198 CHF to obtain ISO 32000-2:2017 from ISO, however.
- Arkanosis 7y agoThat's the same price as C++ (ISO/IEC 14882:2017) and much cheaper than the entire languages codes standard (ISO 639-1:2002, ISO 639-2:1998, ISO 639-3:2007, ISO 639-4:2010 and ISO 639-5:2008). I get your point, though.