<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.