When will PDFs be over?

[jdrakeh]

Do you know how easy it is to create a PDF from Adobe InDesign? If you've already done your layout for the print product in InDesign, why wouldn't you simply save it as a PDF, set the permissions in the file in the process, and stick it on an ecommerce service/site?

Yes, I'm aware of this. This is what most publishers that I know who distribute PDFs do, actually. That having been said, what pray tell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I was pointing out that the idea most consumers would be satisfied paying for a basic text rip of a PDF (i.e., a document minus the print-friendly formatting and graphics) was preposterous.

If the idea wasn't preposterous, we wouldn't even know what a PDF is as there would have been no reason to create or use the format — .txt documents would still be the standard for distributing written works electronically.

Obviously, they aren't. Regardless of whether Jeff likes PDFs, the fact is that they're currently a more desireable commercial product than no-frills text files or hyperlinked HTML archives.

 

[Kristian Serrano]

Yes, I'm aware of this. This is what most publishers that I know who distribute PDFs do, actually. That having been said, what pray tell does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I was pointing out that the idea most consumers would be satisfied paying for a basic text rip of a PDF (i.e., a document minus the print-friendly formatting and graphics) was preposterous. And it is.

If it weren't, we wouldn't even know what a PDF is as there would have been no reason to create or use the format — .txt documents would still be the standard for distributing written works electronically.

Obviously, they aren't. Regardless of whether Jeff likes PDFs, the fact is that they're currently a more desireable commercial product than no-frills text files.

I was answering your question as to why it became the dominant format for the sake of others.

 

[jdrakeh]

I was answering your question as to why it became the dominant format for the sake of others.

Oh! I completely misread you. Many apologies.

 

[Alan Shutko]

Errr... that's because you're doing it wrong. Why on earth would you have two separate sources instead of one that is translated into the final formats? Maintaining separate formats for a single document is not a difficult task.

It is not a difficult task if you have low standards on the quality of the output on each.

It is a very difficult task if you want a good-looking, graphic-rich PDF layout suitable for printing, or for a book, and want a well-hyperlinked HTML version with a layout just as attractive, with the same content, yet still be viewable with ease on an ebook reader (with their limited support of HTML and small screens).

There is no software out there which does this well. Period.

Professional publishers of technical books finesse the point by marking up their content in a format allowing import into publishing systems which mostly automatically set the text, then let typesetters tweak things as necessary. The HTML is likewise mostly automatically translated and can be adjusted to fit. But this only works because technical books have very simple and consistent layouts. That wouldn't work for any graphic-rich book.

Imagine taking the PHB and trying to find a tool which would put out a printed work as nice as the PDF, an HTML copy that had all the graphics and looked nice, and a version which would work on a Kindle. It's not out there right now: that work requires people and time on each document to fix.

 

[guivre]

There is no software out there which does this well. Period.

Absolutely and totally untrue. Period.

XML + XSLT. Done. There is the software that does this. It's not the only one, or even the one I would pick, but it is an effective counter example. You maintain one source file and generate any number of formats you want. Each translation is written once.

 

[jdrakeh]

XML + XSLT. Done. There is the software that does this.

XML batch extractions filtered through XSLT do not come anywhere close to matching the layout of PDF w/regard to presentation unless you invest a lot of time in cleaning things up for production on the backend (and, sometimes, not even then).

Further, laying out a fully illustrated and flowed document from scratch to graphic standards that approximate those of a PDF using only XML isn't fast or easy. This is the same reason that LaTeX (a comparable markup language) didn't catch on outside of the technical writing industry. For publishers, time is money.

To drop a quick and proven publishing format that produces a marketable product for a time-consuming, largely experimental, publishing format that produces a product only a handful of people have expressed interest in?

How would this be anything but a very bad decision for a publisher?

[Edit: Also, XML isn't software.]

 

[freyar]

This is the same reason that LaTeX (a comparable markup language) didn't catch on in the publishing industry.

As an aside: LaTeX has caught on very well in some sectors of the scientific publishing industry -- ones that need the mathematics functionality. But it's for the time reason, since it's so much easier to do math in LaTeX than anything else. To be honest, the D&D PDFs I've done (see my sig) were written in LaTeX.

Threadjack over.

 

[jdrakeh]

As an aside: LaTeX has caught on very well in some sectors of the scientific publishing industry -- ones that need the mathematics functionality.

Yeah, I should have been clearer about that. LaTeX is pretty big for technical writers, but graphic design/layout isn't all that important in said market — and, when it is, it's my own experience that LaTeX output is often finalized as a PDF prior to printing/distribution

 

[RFisher]

I love PDF for the things it was meant for. I hate that it has become something of a de facto standard for things it isn’t the best choice for. I think I understand many of the reasons (as former Director of Advanced Technologies for ibooks.com), but I’m not sure if I can put them in words well. But here’s a stab at it anyway.

1. Adobe. Big company. Other companies are comfortable with them.

2. PDF was a bit ahead of the curve. It was more usable while a lot of other eBook formats were gathering steam and competing with each other. I think the silliness of DRM just threw more confusion into the mix.

3. PDF appeals to control freaks, and there are a lot of them in the publishing world.

I apologize for my small (teensie) part in not getting something better accepted.

 

[starwed]

Go back and read the title of this thread and the original post in its entirety.

Yeah, I did that before posting, thanks. The OP is calling for the end of PDFs... as the exclusive and dominant way to distribute e-books. He wants to be able to buy books in formats other than PDFs. He's frustrated that he can only get books in PDF form.

You're inferring something into his post that simply isn't there in the text. And for some reason you continue to attack this strawman, when what most of the people in this thread want is another option.