Adobe To Release Full PDF Specification to ISO

nickull writes "Adobe announced it will release the entire PDF specification (current version 1.7 ) to the International Standards Organization (ISO) via AIIM. PDF has reached a point in its maturity cycle where maintaining it in an open standards manner is the next logical step in evolution. Not only does this reinforce Adobe's commitment to open standards (see also my earlier blog on the release of flash runtime code to the Tamarin open source project at Sourceforge), but it demonstrates that open standards and open source strategies are really becoming a mainstream concept in the software industry. So what does this really mean? Most people know that PDF is already a standard so why do this now? This event is very subtle yet very significant. PDF will go from being an open standard/specification and de facto standard to a full blown de jure standard. The difference will not affect implementers much given PDF has been a published open standard for years. There are some important distinctions however. First — others will have a clearly documented process for contributing to the future of the PDF specification. That process also clearly documents the path for others to contribute their own Intellectual property for consideration in future versions of the standard. Perhaps Adobe could have set up some open standards process within the company but this would be merely duplicating the open standards process, which we felt was the proper home for PDF. Second, it helps cement the full PDF specification as the umbrella specification for all the other PDF standards under the ISO umbrella such as PDF/A, PDF/X and PDF/E. The move also helps realize the dreams of a fully open web as the web evolves (what some are calling Web 2.0), built upon truly open standards, technologies and protocols."

Flash SWF file specification not open

[NearlyHeadless]

You cannot download the Flash File Format (SWF) specification without agreeing to a license which forbids writing a flash interpreter.

http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/fileforma t/faq/#item-1-8 [adobe.com]:

Can I use the File Format Specification to create a SWF interpreter or player?

No, the File Format Specification is provided for the specific purpose of enabling software applications to export to the Macromedia Flash File Format (SWF).

Re:How to resize PDF ?

[UtucXul]

PDF is fine for what is was designed for: creating print documents. But I hate pdf when reading it on the screen as it won't fit my window width: either you have to scroll back and forth every line or the characters are too small to read. Is there any app that can 'uncompile' a pdf and fit it on a screen width ? Might be a great app for reading docs on a laptop/pda/cell phone.

pdftotxt

pdftohtml
or
pdftk
The last one is more to let you edit a pdf, but they are all really useful when dealing with pdf file.

Re:Tamarin

[SavedLinuXgeeK]

No, Tamarin is essentially getting Flash's action script engine, whichis EMCA Script 3.0 (I think), and this meaning that Firefox's javascript engine will be able to be replaced (overhauled) with the onen from Flash. The action script engine in flash is much faster and more robust than the one in Firefox currently.

"Standard du jure" [sic]?

[gblues]

1) I think you mean "du jour"
2) <IndigoMantoya>I don't think "du jour" means what you think it means.</IndigoMantoya>

"du jour" simply means "of the day" ("soup du jour" => "soup of the day"). I really don't think you intended to claim that becoming the standard of the day is a good thing. I think saying, "PDF will transition from a de facto standard to an official one" would have been clearer, more succinct, and still gotten your intended point across.

Nathan

Re:Kudos to them

[Ucklak]

You can't account for fonts. PDF allows insertion of fonts. That is what makes it 100% compatible across platforms and rips.

Obligatory grammar flame

[1u3hr]

"PDF has reached a point in it's maturity cycle"

It's == It is. Its == possessive.

"a full blown du jure standard"

Either [soup] "du jour" or [practices] "de jure"?

Can't tell who's responsible for this, the linked page is Slashdotted.

Re:Oh dear God.

[Dik Zak]

Yes, a 100 MB application to read text seems a bit much. I use Foxit Reader. Just 2 MB, very fast.

Re:Well...

[ettlz]

There is no reason that it needs to cost so much to create non-editable documents.

Quite, which is why things like PDFCreator [pdfforge.org] exist.

Re:"Standard du jure" [sic]?

[Idaho]

1) I think you mean "du jour"
2) I don't think "du jour" means what you think it means.

He actually meant "de jure", not "du jure", which indeed doesn't make much sense.

From wikipedia:

De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "based on law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "in fact".

source [wikipedia.org]

So what he was actually trying to say is not supposed to be French (although French, being a roman language, is indeed similar to Latin).

Re:Open Standard != Open Source

[TheLinuxSRC]

"When they open source Photoshop then we will know they support open source strategies.

Actually, Adobe did not open source anything with this move. They opened up the specification for the file format for PDF files. This is still a great move because other companies can now support PDF in both directions (read and write) but it is not open sourcing Acrobat. The equivalent move with regard to Photoshop would be to open up the file specification for the Photoshop work files (some sort of PNGs I believe).

Re:Kudos to them

[Zebra1024]

Most word processors, like Microsoft Word, are created on the WYSIWYG [wikipedia.org] principle. They are designed to show you on the screen how the document will look when it is printed. This is why the printer affects how the document is rendered to the screen.

Re:Other apps can edit PDFs now?

[Noksagt]

There are a lot of ways to edit PDFs. Sometimes it is worth converting to postscript, as you'll have even more tools. The tools below are free/open source and run on Linux. Most also work on other operating systems. If you are willing to take a proprietary solution, there are even more options:

• flpsed [ecademix.com]
• PDF Edit [petricek.net]
• KWord [koffice.org]
• Scribus [scribus.net]
• Inkscape [inkscape.org]
• GIMP [gimp.org]
• pdftk [pdfhacks.com]
• Jarnal [dklevine.com]
• Multivalent [sourceforge.net]

Re:ISO approved PDF

[Sax Maniac]

Or, just disable the 952 plugins you don't use. Acrobat reader launchs plenty fast without loading them all.

Re:Dont confuse OpenSource with Open Standards

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Currently there are three standards being specified. Which itself is bad. OpenDoc, a microsoft thingie called OpenXML and now the OpenPDF.

Currently there are two existing standards, OpenDocument (not OpenDoc which is something else) and PDF. These standards are for different purposes. The former is for word processing, and other office documents. The latter is for distributing finished products that are intended to be portable and not editable by those receiving them.

This article is about Adobe certifying their latest version of the PDF standard and announcing a formalized process for contributions from others to the development of the standard (rather than them doing most of the work and other companies contacting them to get things added).

In addition to these established standards, MS is introducing two new formats designed to "compete" with the established standards. The first is OpenXML, which is is arguably a standard but which takes care to make sure the traditional benefits of open standards are unusable. The second is XPS, built into Vista and designed to replace PDF. It is actually pretty much an OpenXML file plus a directory of images and binaries, wrapped in DRM and compressed as a zip file, with the extension XPS.

I wish PDF and OpenDoc will merge and come up with a unified standard.

I can see the argument for this, but one of the main reasons people use PDF is because they can distribute files via the Web, e-mail, IM, or whatever and users can read but not alter that content along the way. I'm not suer these two formats should be merged, or that it would bring a lot of benefit to anyone. For example, I make PDF files that use a lot of features I don't need or want in a word processing program. I can make PDF documents from my Web browser and often to in order to archive my transactions. I'm not sure I want those files to be editable in any way, and I know that putting them in ODF format as it currently exists would add considerable bloat.

Re:Flash SWF file specification not open

[Qubit]

I emailed Adobe recently to clarify their licensing of the Flash/SWF file formats. Here's an abreviated summary of the email conversation:
(If people are interested, I can post the full messages somewhere)

Me:

Your licensing page[1] for the Flash and Flash Video file formats
states that the license "does not permit the usage of the
specification to create software which supports SWF file playback."

Why does your license prohibit the creation of playback software?

The reason I'm asking is that in April of 2002, in an article written
by David Becker[2], it seemed clear that Macromedia was committed to
making the Flash file formats be open file formats. In the article,
"Kevin Lynch, chief software architect for Macromedia," stated that
the Flash file format was open for all developers:
  "The file format has been open for years now, so people can build
whatever software they like around it," Lynch said. "We feel it really
needs to be open and to promote an ecosystem where people can build
software on top of it...We believe that's the best way to keep the
player successful and still provide access to developers."

[1] http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/ [adobe.com]
[2] http://www.zdnetindia.com/techzone/trends/stories/ 9,53742.html [zdnetindia.com]

Jennifer Chang, Senior Program Manager for the Flash Player, responded:

the short answer is: no, you still can't make playback software using
our file format specifications. by making the file format open, our
intent is to allow 3rd parties to make applications that output SWF and
FLV. however, for optimal support and experience, SWFs and FLVs should
play in adobe's flash player. we have no plans to open-source flash
player itself. we rather like making it ourselves. :)

So there it is -- Adobe does not (and will not) allow 3rd parties to use the documentation for SWF/FLV files to create decoders. Adobe's PDF file format may be open, but the Flash file formats are definitely not open.

So that raises a few questions:
1) Can reverse-engineering the file format give enough information to make a fully-featured flash decoder/player?
2) Will Adobe try to stop such reverse-engineering efforts?
3) Is it worth it to continue along the Flash route, or should supporters of Open Standards promote an alternate vector-based animation/movie format?

Re:Flash SWF file specification not open

[Qubit]

...certainly, but is it worth it?...why support closed software? That seems like a horrible idea to me.

I share your concern over supporting closed file formats and closed software, but Gnash [gnu.org] is one of the 6 items that the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org] has placed on their list of High Priority Free Software Projects [fsf.org]!

Like the proprietary MS-Word file formats, the Flash SWF and FLV formats have become so pervasive in our online world (viral animations, YouTube, Google Video, Albino Blacksheep, etc...) that the FSF realizes the importance of providing support in Free Software for reading these formats so that people who try* to run only Free Software do not miss out on this content.

* I say "try" because there are always file formats I cannot open and online services that I cannot access using Free Software (although it seems to be less of a problem today, which is encouraging).

Re:ISO approved PDF

[Sax Maniac]

They have no GUI so you have to hack it in. I found something like this years ago, and it's pretty obvious how to do it:

    http://gemal.dk/blog/2003/11/18/slow_acrobat_reade r/ [gemal.dk]