Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat

[Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- COM]

      I submit that it is arrogance on the part of a writer to demand this
      of a reader.

There's some good points made there, Stan. But:

1) If your audience is looking for documents or info on the web, I think some
basic network competancy assumptions can be made about them without decending
into arrogance.

2) True, many sites have nearly anal policies about I-net software, but even my
site (which is more restrictive than most -- you need to demonstrate a business
need to even be allowed out the door, much less bring anything in) recognizes
the need for helper applications (no, DOOM is not a helper application). We have
them served internally on a file server for those who find they need them. It's
not an unreasonable assumption that other sites have equivalent policies in
place. It's also reasonable to assume that those sites which don't will also not
allow their people to be out on the web at all, thus cutting off access to HTML
as well. I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who has access to HTML
can also get access to PDF.

3) Funny. When I click on a URL for: http://www.adobe.com/Acrobat/freeread.html
I'm taken right to the download page, which contains the hotlinks for every
Acrobat version out there. Doesn't seem to be a lot of extra navigation involved
at all.

And while I was out at Adobe double-checking that last point, I noticed that
Acrobat now has a plug-in which allows you to use Netscape as a Helper app for
it, so it's quite possible to use Acrobat as a base document format and include
weblinks within it! ;{>}


Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 124

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.