Print

Print


<deinx nxtxr> wrote:
> steve rice wrote:
> 
>>>>> Personally I find writing directly in portable
>>> HTML (and organizing my site as a few large HTML docs instead
>>> of many
>>>>> small ones) is easier for me; one can open my HTML
>>> docs in a
>>>>> word processor and save as PDF after adjusting the
>>> type size
>>>>> and margins to suit your preferences, if you
>>> want.
>>>> I completely agree. That's why when I encounter a lot
>>> of tiny
>>>> files, I sometimes bother to combine them, as I did
>>> with James
>>>> Chandler's version of _An International Language_:
>>> it's better
>>>> as a single file. (Among other things, I can search
>>> it
>>>> properly.) PDF is only useful for extremely complex
>>> documents
>>>> or making the contents tamper-resistant.
>>> PDF's really aren't that tamper-resistant.  PDF editors do
>>> exist.
>>
>> "Tamper-resistant" is not "tamper-proof." PDF makes tampering
>> harder than plain html, and most PDF editors respect passwords
>> and other protections.
> 
> True but the only real resistance is user ignorance of other software 
> options being available.  Most people just download and install Adobe 
> Reader because they aren't aware of third party software capable of 
> working with PDF's (though some seem to lack all the functionality of 
> the full version of Acrobat).
> 
> 
>> I'll agree about having a single
>>> large file is ideal for downloading, but for web presentation
>>> a bunch of small HTML pages linked together makes things
>>> easier to navigate especially if someone is still on a
>>> low-bandwidth connection.
>>
>> I'm still on dial-up, and I prefer a single large html file
>> over paging through several files, unless the page is over a
>> meg or so, in which case it should be zipped anyway. But PDFs
>> are larger anyway and take longer to load.
> 
> It's been a few years since I was forced to use dialup but you are right 
> about a single file being easier to download.  I don't like single files 
> though for web browsing.  It's too much of a hassle to keep scrolling 
> through a document compared with a well-designed website that has 
> everything cross-linked for easy navigation.
> 
> 
> 
>> One of nice
>>> things about PDF's is that they not only retain fonts and formatting 
>>> but can also be set up with a navigation bar so they are easily 
>>> browsed giving the best of all worlds. Web
>>> browsers don't really make very good readers.
>>
>> But it's not difficult to save html as PDF, either.
> 
> Yes that can be done, but a the cost of it looking like a printout of a 
> webpage as opposed to looking like a professionally prepared and 
> formatted document.  I currently use PDF Creator, a freeware program 
> that works as a printer driver so anything I can "print" can become a 
> PDF.  It does the job, but the real Acrobat will take an MS Word file 
> and create a navigation bar to match the table of contents.  This is an 
> extremely handy feature when you are dealing with documents that are 
> hundreds of pages long.
> 
OpenOffice 3.0 is free, can create documents with links, and can export
to PDF with the links intact.