PDF figures

[Ganz, Frank, SV USA]

Hi Robin,

I hear your frustration in your response. I work for a commercial publisher and see this a lot with Word users. One has to constantly upgrade software, because users don't know that they can save in an older version.

And so it is with Adobe products. Adobe responds to the calls of the marketplace. Some say they respond too slowly. Also, they want to stay in business. Adobe profits from the ignorance of some users. Even though someone's document doesn't make use of the newest features, they still provide a file in the latest PDF version (PDF 1.6 with Adobe 7, I believe). Meanwhile, if you want to work with them, you may choose to upgrade your software.

We, as a commercial publisher, give out .joboptions files, so that we can assert control on what we're getting. If my assumption is right, you may eliminate the source of frustration by doing the the same.

:)

Thanks,
Frank


>the problems arise because adobe keep making pdf more complicated.
>yet another release of distiller in the last month or so.



>> Ghostscript, which is free software and available on all major
>> platforms, has the same capability, usually invoked through
>the script
>> ps2pdf.  Naturally, ps2pdf and Distiller have different
>bugs, features,
>> pros, cons, etc.  See www.ghostscript.com.
>
>but it's always slightly behind what adobe's just invented.  which is
>(in part) why adobe keeps inventing things -- to keep ahead of
>the game.
>
>> One common way to use pdf files as images is to use pdflatex
>to create
>> pdf files directly.  Then the standard \includegraphics,
>etc., commands
>> will understand .pdf, and the whole ps->pdf conversion step
>is omitted.
>>
>> pdflatex can also directly read .jpg, .png, and all the other usual
>> formats -- the only common image format it cannot deal with is,
>> ironically enough, .eps.  (Unfortunately, there are basic technical
>> issues involved which make it impossible.)
>>
>> I don't know if Y&Y TeX has pdf(la)tex, so I don't know if
>this helps,
>> just thought I'd mention it.
>
>y&ytex _doesn't_ have pdftex capabilities.  which is a pity, but there
>you go.
>
>r
>