19 May
2005
19 May
'05
3:48 p.m.
From: "Jules Richardson" <julesrichardsonuk at yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 5:20 PM
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 23:46 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw
wrote:
PDF is terrible way to package the documents. It's just better than any
other practical method ;-)
So many talk about ASCII being the only "right way", as Al can attest to
time and accuracy makes image oriented PDF's the way to go.
Finding errors in OCR'ed files is extremely time consuming.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
On Thu, 2005-05-19 16:32:46 -0500, Randy
McLaughlin <cctalk at randy482.com>
wrote:
Doesn't this sort of imply that PDF is the wrong choice of format for
jobs like these? (plus I'm pissed at Adobe because their current readr
for Linux eats close on 100MB of disk space just to let me read a PDF
file :-)
It might be good for text-based documents (offering text searching and
the like), but is it necessarily the right thing for collections of page
scans?
cheers
J. One extra caveat would be when listing page
numbers both the printed
page
numbers and the PDF's declared page numbers should be included.
Some time ago, I worked on some TeX skeleton (generated with script's
aid) to produce a PDF file with nice bookmarks and all the like.
However, I came to the conclusion that this isn't a real solution.
I'm still thinking about how paper-based documentation can be made up
cleverly enough to gain text as well as images and mixing meta-data into
that. Maybe I'd do some C programming and hack something nice producing
PDF files helding everything? But first, I'd need to understand PDF
(whose specification actually is about 8cm thick...)