Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9B896D2D2 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 30024 invoked by uid 500); 16 Oct 2012 18:56:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-users-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 29989 invoked by uid 500); 16 Oct 2012 18:56:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-users@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-users@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 29978 invoked by uid 99); 16 Oct 2012 18:56:42 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:56:42 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (nike.apache.org: transitioning domain of hagar.delest@laposte.net does not designate 212.27.42.1 as permitted sender) Received: from [212.27.42.1] (HELO smtp1-g21.free.fr) (212.27.42.1) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:56:34 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [83.153.184.98]) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3C0940105 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:56:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <507DADC8.6040303@laposte.net> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 20:56:08 +0200 From: Hagar Delest User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ooo-users@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: aoo for android References: <20121016034458.GA2072@nexaima.net> In-Reply-To: <20121016034458.GA2072@nexaima.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Why PDF is not a good format for published documents? Perhaps ePub could be better (don't have any device for that so haven't tested). I think that documents need a format for the published status, something not editable. What's wrong with PDF? Hagar Le 16/10/2012 05:44, M. Fioretti a écrit : > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 16:47:18 PM -0400, David H. Lipman wrote: >> From: "Gaspar N��ez" >> >>> I think that at least a good reader should be available >> >> Published documents should be in a published format like the >> Portable Document Format (PDF). > > Why? > > If people need to torture themselves by really, routinely _editing_ > ODF documents on a tiny screen, without keyboards, that's their > problem, I agree. > > But the sooner we get over the PDF cultural stage/limit, the better it > will be for open government/open data (and other things too, but these > are the most important ones). Good ODF readers are necessary to get > rid of PDFs, that is to make official public documents immediately > readable on every platform. In a format that allows users to > immediately check internal structures as formulas in spreadsheets, and > is also better than PDF as it can adapt much better to different > screen sizes. > > Yes, ePub would do too, at least for text-only documents. In any case, > PDF as the format for documents to be published should disappear in > many practical cases because of its limits. > > Marco F. > http://mfioretti.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ooo-users-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: ooo-users-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: ooo-users-help@incubator.apache.org