Adobe To Release Full PDF Specification to ISO 275
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."
ISO approved PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (OpenDocument Format) was the first nail.
Re: (Score:2)
I like pdf, and see no reason to use another format for tasks I'd use a pdf for, personally.
Re:ISO approved PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a nail in the MS XML coffin?
First, hopefully you were referring to XPS (XML Paper Specification) and not OpenXML, which many of the replies seem to assume. I don't see this as a counter move actually, but rather as business as usual. PDF has been an open standard for a long time and I don't know that any real player has any trouble getting Adobe to add to the spec. I'm glad they've formalized the process and renewed their commitment to keeping PDF an open standard.
I also don't see that PDF has much of a chance in the battle against XPS. Unless Microsoft is forbidden from bundling readers and writers with Windows, it will take over most of the market via that monopoly leveraging. By the time the courts act I suspect the market will already be destroyed and everyone will be locked into one set of tools made by MS. The courts will eventually rule against MS, and Adobe will get some money, but the market will never be repaired and consumers will be stuck with a PDF replacement where they can only get tools from one vendor and those tools will never be improved again.
I could be wrong. The courts could be faster than molasses or the industry as a whole could see the trap coming and stick with PDF despite MS. I don't suspect that will be the case though. The most realistic hopeful scenario would be Linux adoption by corporations and government taking off for managed desktops and OS X taking off in the home market sufficiently that the Windows monopoly is weakened enough so that MS cannot effectively manage a takeover based on their monopoly alone.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already make reasonable (buy not great) PDFs via a free printer driver in Windows (and OS X / *NIX). Tools like OpenOffice and pdflatex produce better ones (with metadata containing the table of contents and hyperlinks,
Re: (Score:2)
I got sick of PDF's taking forever to loading, and the reader hanging constantly on our PC's at work, so I banned them from from the office. It shouldn't take a bleeding edge machine to open plain old documents in a reasonable amount of time.
XPS is built into Windows Vista. I believe all new programs on Vista will generate XPS output the same way those on OS X can generate PDF. Just being built into Office would put a big dent into the market, since XPS files will open faster than PDF, but the fact that
Re:ISO approved PDF (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Windows 2003, Windows XP, Windows Vista, etc.?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're mistaken about this. I don't know about other programs, but you actually need to download a plugin to get XPS or PDF output in Office 2007. See here [msdn.com] for example. Reading between the lines, Microsoft would probably have been guilty of abusing their monopoly if everything XPS was bundled with the OS -- Netscape/IE all over ag
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, Microsoft already announced that they are submitting XPS to ISO/ECMA. Adobe's announcement is a reaction to that.
Second, XPS has more features than PDF, creates smaller file sizes, and is more easily manipulatable (that is, to make a program that manipulates XPS, you just take any XML parser and add the XPS semantics).
Plus, Adobe reserves that right to sue anyone that uses PDF. They used legal threats to force Microsoft to remove PDF support from Office 2007 (out of the box; MS sti
Re:ISO approved PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
Evince is fast and snappy here on my old and busted PIII 700Mhz, with only 128MB RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ISO approved PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
Foxit [foxitsoftware.com]. Windows and (now) Linux. Takes about 1/2 a second to open.
If you have a Mac, you have a slick one built in.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://gemal.dk/blog/2003/11/18/slow_acrobat_read
Re:ISO approved PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the most verbose XML couldn't come close to the unbelievable bloat that is .PDF.
The PDF standard does not seem particularly bloated to me.
I got sick of PDF's taking forever to loading, and the reader hanging constantly on our PC's at work, so I banned them from from the office. It shouldn't take a bleeding edge machine to open plain old documents in a reasonable amount of time.
Ignorance is one of the main reasons why open standards lose to MS proprietary ones in the market. The average person does not understand the advantages. One of the main advantages is that no one is locked into a single vendor for their tools. Despite this almost everyone uses the combination of Window+IE+Adobe Acrobat Reader Plug-in. This is a terrible toolset and is bloated, slow, and poorly designed. Windows can't multi-task memory resources if your life depended upon it. IE itself is bloated and poorly handles threading plug-ins and will hang the whole process until a download is complete. The acrobat plug-in is slow and bloated with all the default settings turned on. The end result is an average user with an average machine clicking on a PDF link and their whole machine grinding to a halt while it waits for the download to finish, then they get to wait yet longer while the Acrobat plug-in eventually gets around to its main purpose.
The solution is, quite simply, don't use that combination of tools. If you're on Windows there are plenty of great, free PDF readers. Foxit is my favorite. On Linux I like XPDF and on OS X I like Preview. You have choices because PDF is an open standard. Blaming a standard for the failings of a given tool is just plain incorrect.
Now I imagine you won't care what I say anyway and will be quite happy when Microsoft's bundled XPS format takes over the market. It will even render faster for you for some time, since the default tools will be built into the OS's display APIs. You'll probably be happy about this for years until you realize you can't move to another platform because all your files are trapped in one only MS's reader will open. Moreover, you'll probably be wondering why you need a top end machine 5 years from now to open files you used to be able to open on your old machine, but since there will only be one reader available you'll be stuck with that. And if they start adding DRM as a mandatory feature on XPS files, so that you have to register all the documents you create with MS, well what can you do? Sure you'll complain about these things, but what will you do? Everyone uses XPS and if you ever want to submit a resume you need to have Windows with its built-in XPS tools.
...or maybe you won't. Maybe you and the rest of the industry will wise up to the advantages of open standards, as a few large organizations currently seem to be doing. Maybe you'll just download a good PDF viewer and think to yourself, wow I'm glad I have options and I'm not stuck with just one viewer, that would suck."
Re:ISO approved PDF (Score:5, Insightful)
Find a solution to the problem. That's your job.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how Adobe's IP licensing will be affected by this? PDF licensing has to be at least some revenue.
I am not quite sure what you are smoking to come up with that. The PDF specification [adobe.com] has been available for download for free, with no constraints on what it can be used for for years. Or did you think the xpdf developers were paying a license fee to Adobe for you to use their app? As with PostScript, Adobe released the specification for anyone to use, and made money by providing an implementation.
Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know that this move has more meaning today than if it was done two years ago, but I certainly see more motivation today. The purpose of the ODF is to ensure that 100 years from now we can still access data. Closed formats mean data may not be accessible in the future. PDF used to be the sole means to have a document look exactly the same across any platform. That is no longer the case, and even Microsoft has opened the standard (mostly) on their new Office data files.
While I still applaud the effort, Adobe is late to the party.
Re:Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I disagree. Even when open office formats, the document won't look exactly the same on one an other platform. Example : the open document format (.odt) renders somewhat differently when opened in OpenOffice for Windows and OpenOffice for Linux. And it may be completely different when opened with koffice.
The content is the same, though.
What I believe is the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And I get garbage display (bitmap fonts) on some computer display.
PDF is certainly not perfect.
Re:Kudos to them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But I do agree that you brought up a good point. OpenOffice isn't striving to make the same document look exactly the same across all platforms. They are just trying to make the same data accessible and editable across all platforms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How should you display a document that someone set to use 0.4" borders, but the printer won't take any less that 0.5"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Kudos to them (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, one answer is that PDF can not do that. For instance if you print the same document that runs to the very edge of the page on two printers, one with a 1/4" margin and one with a 1/8" margin, you have two options. You can scale it, or not. If you scale it, the documents will be different sizes. If you do not, different amounts of the document will be unprinted (they lie in that unprintable margin area.) PDF doesn't override the physical limitations of the output device, it works within them just like every other program.
Another answer is that word is a big pile of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think part of the problem is that Word likes to use the fonts that have been installed in the printer, instead of the fonts that are present on the local computer. Stupidly, every printer seems to implement their own version of each font. Installing fonts on a printer hasn't been necessary since the bad old days of daisy wheels, but that's inertia for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it has the same name doesn't mean it's the same application. Or even if it were the same binary running under emulation, differences can occur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Kudos to them (Score:4, Insightful)
I do too. This is a very mature and wise decision for Adobe to make.
I know now that I was wrong, but I did not care for PDFs for years. And still to this day I have issues with people that don't do them correctly (basically those that put a bunch of huge images into a PDF container).
But with the advent of Linux and especially OS X being able to create PDFs so easily, and I can share documents with anybody and have them look like they are supposed to look is very nice.
Although I would have prefered if this was an open spec with quality PDF generators from day one, 10 years or so of progress to that ultimate goal is not bad in the long run.
This model should be _the_ standard for propriatary data formats. By that, I mean going from propriatary to an open standard if it cannot be an open standard from the beginning. Autodesk, MS, etc, I'm looking at you for adopting such a respectable decision for document formats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's Office XML format is a half-hearted attempt to conform to standards. Really, it's another example of MS trying to hold onto their monopoly. Adobe is doing it the right way by fully opening the specification. From the initial evaluations of the MS proposal: Office XML specification is done in such a way that only MS can implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen some PDFs (generated with LaTeX using the microtype package) that looked significantly different on several printers. Some just decided to ignore whole paragraphs, others just decided to print several words in bold. They all looked fine on the Monitor, but not printed
So to sum up: No, PDFs do not look identically everywhere.
(disabling microtype or using PCL instead of PostScript to print fixed those iss
Thanks Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation for mere mortals: Adobe is feeling the breath of Microsoft and its Metro [wikipedia.org]. They are so scared to become the next Netscape they are trying to nil any reason people may have to use Microsoft's XPS.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
A: Of course they can, the whole thing was hypocritical to begin with.
Flash SWF file specification not open (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/fileforma t/faq/#item-1-8 [adobe.com]:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
(If people are interested, I can post the full messages somewhere)
Me:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Tamarin (Score:2)
Please forgive my ignorance on the matter. I do recall reading the article earlier on how Adobe has released the code on the scripting portion of Flash to Mozilla, and how it created the Tamarin project.
Is the scripting portion alone enough for Mozilla to have their own embedded fully-functional Flash player?
Can we compile from source a 64-bit Flash player some day through this project?
The Tamarin Project mentions Firefox 2, and as far as I can tell from reading the
Re:Tamarin (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Pet Peeve (Score:2)
Intertional Organization for Standardization [wikipedia.org]
"Standard du jure" [sic]? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re:"Standard du jure" [sic]? (Score:5, Informative)
From wikipedia: 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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great news, but not necessarily a free-for-all (Score:5, Interesting)
It is wonderful to hear that the PDF specification will be the subject of open standardization. Caution should be exercised when implementing products though. Almost 400 patents have been granted to Adobe [uspto.gov]. Adobe has another 50 patent applications [uspto.gov] in process. There may also be additional patents that have been assigned to Adobe or that Adobe has an exclusive license to practice. Adobe may also have intellectual property in foreign markets that are greater in scope than what Adobe has in the United States.
Caution should be exercised because ISO does not require that its standards be patent-free. Necessary patents merely must be available on a reasonable and non-discriminatory [iso.org] basis. Adobe (or anyone else really) may also seek patents on how PDFs are used, manipulated, etc.
This doesn't necessarily mean that Adobe is bad or that any Open Source Software projects will ever face any obstacles from Adobe. It simply means that some care should be taken to determine whether any of Adobe's patents cover features of the PDF standard or its uses, especially when developing software that mimics an existing proprietary product. If there is a question, then OSS developers should contact Adobe to try to get a license (perhaps for the consideration of a promise that the resulting product remain open source).
Go Open and Win! (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare that to Sun with Java. Sun just wouldn't let go, so it never got beyond being just another product that competitors had to *take down!* One of those was Microsoft, but they themselves made the same mistake with Microsoft Word. Remember how DOC files used to be the "standard" (cough) for distributing documents on the web? Now it's all either PDF or HTML. If MS had let go, maybe, people would have used that?** In the long run, when we're talking about data which *needs* to be interchangable and not tied to one software vendor, an open spec will win. Especially a better one! (PDFs look the same. Word DOCs don't!)
(Reading this and feeling good Adobe? *great*. Now please head on over to Joel and learn about user interface design http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog
Anyway, PDF and PS still rock and I'm glad they won!
** = Yes, Microsoft did make a feint with their Office XML, but everyone recognizes it for the debacle it is. Sorry Dad!
Not "open". (Score:2)
If Adobe throws in the towel and uses any other open document format, then they have to write off a lot of their marketable PDF technical skillset. Instead, playing the open-source benefactor is the next logical step.
This therefore does not necessarily "reinforce Adobe's commitment to open standards", it merely illustrates that it is no longer cost effective for Adobe to continue to maintain the PDF format in house.
Also, open-sourcing a mature proprietary format such as PDF (which has been driven by a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This therefore does not necessarily "reinforce Adobe's commitment to open standards", it merely illustrates that it is no longer cost effective for Adobe to continue to maintain the PDF format in house.
Adobe released PostScript as an open specification from the start. They made their money selling a PostScript interpreter for printers. Anyone could implement their own, however. This back-fired for them in some of the later versions, where they released the specification too early and their competitors release implementations first.
They released PDF because PostScript had some issues. It was Turing-complete, so a PostScript program could potentially never terminate. It also didn't contain any way
Good guy or just competition? (Score:2)
The one thing that I will give Adobe credit for is that they are at least doing it early enough so that it can make a real difference. As it is (was), most companies wait until they have no choice before doing so. Java is a good example of that. I think that had Java gone true OSS at least 6-7 years ago, sun
Other apps can edit PDFs now? (Score:2)
Anyone know if other apps will be able to do this now? Or if some already do? I've heard of pdftk, but it doesn't seem to actually edit the content itself.
Re:Other apps can edit PDFs now? (Score:4, Informative)
Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not that people don't think of PDF as a standard - it's that it's insanely expensive to have as a "feature".
I mean seriously, think about it - you can buy a "normal" version of Office for the price of being able to export your documents to a PDF. Arguably the utility of Office applications is significantly higher than the ability to ship PDF's around.
It is also very clear
CutePDF (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Quite, which is why things like PDFCreator [pdfforge.org] exist.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Let me introduce you to PDFCreator [sourceforge.net] -- free, open source printing to PDF. If you want to create interactive forms and such, the Adobe software is worth the money; but for simple PDF printing, all you need is PDFCreator. (Or OpenOffice, for that matter, which has "Save to PDF" built in.)
Re: (Score:2)
As others have pointed out, there is third party software to create PDFs for free on all platforms. What I haven't seen are many tools to process XPS documents on non-windows platforms (or even on "legacy" windows). There is an open source XPS to PDF converter [ndesk.org], but I know of no current way to create an XPS document without using Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
The maybe you should try Mac OS X. There's been a "save as PDF" button right there in the print dialog since 10.0.
Re: (Score:2)
I set up 'redmon'*, add a postscript printer from the windows printer drivers database, and redirect the output to ghostscript which has a ps2pdf utility.
* http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/redmon/ [wisc.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
There's plugins available for some versions of office, freely, that will print to PDF. There are multiple PDF printers for windows (CutePDF is popular, and (this surprised me at first) installed on all my uni's computers), and free PDF creation programs all over the place. Hell, pdflatex creates PDFs with much better results than you'd get out of a word document.
As with the grandparent, there's many better ways of doing things, in most cases, than the way you've chosen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that I can print to XPS right now, but I can't print to PDF without paying 300 bones (standard edition) or 449 (professional).
There are a coupe of things to note in this. With PDF there are lots of free tools to read and write PDFs, as well as a lot of closed tools. With XPS, there is only Microsoft. You claim you have to pay for PDF generation tools, but that is only because you're only considering offerings from one vendor. Worse yet you assume you have not paid for XPS generation tools, when in
ISO Can Be Good PDF PR (Score:2)
Obligatory grammar flame (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Is this really the entire spec? (Score:2)
What about the features that deal with applying black bars over text (can we build a PDF reader that completely ignores such data and see all the text that whoever did the obscuring thought was no longer readable?)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are simply rectangles dropped over the text, either printed by the word processor or added manually with a PDF editor. I'm pretty sure there isn't a specific "redacted" feature in PDF.
The submitter talks like... (Score:2)
Sorry to break your heart, folks, but that's like saying Open Source invented ISO / ANSI / IEEE / etc. A.k.a.: nonsense. The process of open industry standards predates the open source community.
I know that the Open Source c
Dont confuse OpenSource with Open Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
There can be no doubt or argument that there should be only one open standard. Open meaning not owned by any entity or for-profit company. Ideally the standard should be specified and updated on behalf of all the consumers or all the people by the government or an institute chartered by it. The Standard specifying body should be completely neutral and agnostic. It should allow all players, big and small, for profit and non-profit, commercial and non commercial a level playing field. Such is the case with your nuts and bolts (SAE and DIN spec) or your engine oil or light bulbs or extension cords or ASCII encoding (not EBCDIE if any remembers that) and ANSI language specs.
Open Source, one can debate, one can agree to various extent the usefulness or the lack of it. Pros and cons you can disagree with me. As long as neither you nor I control the standards, it is a level playing field and the market and history will prove either you or me as correct. Same with free software.
Currently there are three standards being specified. Which itself is bad. OpenDoc, a microsoft thingie called OpenXML and now the OpenPDF. I like OpenXML least because it pretends to be a standard but it cant be implemented by all players without help/license from Microsoft. It has the audaucity to enshrine bugs of Office97 and Word6 and WordPerfect5 as standards . OpenDoc is already well on its way in the standards process. PDF has a much wider user installed base and has a financial muscle of a decent profit making company and its self interest. I wish PDF and OpenDoc will merge and come up with a unified standard.
Re: (Score:2)
PDF is a layout format. You do you document in a layout language, such as LaTeX, or a formatting system, like OpenOffice. Then you save your document to PDF as if you were publishing it. Changes should be made to the original document, and then re-exported as a PD
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that there IS doubt and argument on this topic. I personally am not even sure if you are suggesting that no one should argue for or against the idea of a single open standard.
Personally I see no reason that multiple standards should exist as long as they are open and maintained by independent bodies. The nature of file format standards which are clearly described and fully documented allow for translation between file f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 certify
Via AIM? (Score:5, Funny)
ISO_19_TX: thats hot
The orginal press release (Score:2)
Thanks but no thanks (Score:2)
Microsoft's XML Paper Specification (XPS) is already available for anyone to implement. And it's plain, readable XML instead of a 25-year-old printer description language. Your applicaiton can build files using any XML parsing engine, instead of having to license a PDF library.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you mean is that it's not human-readable. And it's not designed to be -- what's the point of that? It's not going to be human-writable or human-editable.
And it's plain, readable XML instead of a 25-year-old printer description language.
XML is a subset of a 40-year-old markup language. XML has become the ultimate cancer on computing -- it's this seductive hammer that makes everything look like a nail, and wh
Flashpaper ? (Score:2)
Adobe employee responds to some raised questions (Score:3, Interesting)
Releasing via AIIM (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 fi
Re: (Score:2)
A similar way to go is pdftops followed by some pstops magic to cut out obxs (like text columns) and then reformat them onto a new page. To the OP I wuold say:
man pdftops
man pstops
As these tools are magic, and you will love them.
Re: (Score:3)
No, technical discussions of the format aside.
As an end user, it would help if you consider the format a FINAL format (for viewing, printing, distribution, etc.), and treat the authoring of it as entirely separate. It's really quite obvious, but the modern widespread use of wordprocessing software (which typically combines the two separate steps in an unholy but manageable mess) has led to the confusion. Put another way, your quest
Re: (Score:2)
> common denominator for people and computers.
So true. Although I'd even add the HTML Unicode escapes to that definition of text. I'm working on a JavaCC book [generating...javacc.com] right now and writing it in DocBook, and you can easily do Unicode characters with the hex encoding. For example, ü (or U+00FC) is ü. DocBook handles this just fine, the PDF output looks good, and so the book can use accented characters and such when appropriate.
Re:Oh dear God. (Score:4, Interesting)
B.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The default preview app in OSX works well, and i often use kpdf under Linux, but there are many PDF readers for pretty much every platform in existance, there's even a PDF reader for AmigaOS, and no adobe don't make an official one f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
The specification has been open. The story is that they're submitting it to ISO, making it a standard. Previously only subsets of PDF have been standardized such as PDF/X (ISO 15930) and PDF/A (ISO 19005).
This is still a great move because other companies can now support PDF in both directions (read and write)
This has always been the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could also add 'more than one compatible implementation exists' to the list. With this announcement, Adobe have added 'controlled by a standards body' to the list. This is quite important, but it only effects future versions of
Re: (Score:2)