Whatever you do, do not upgrade to Adobe reader 8. I found this on the texhax list.
Has anyone else been clobbered by the discovery that Adobe Acrobat 8 tacitly suppresses all ligature glyphs of the fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl sort and displays blanks in their place. They do this without warning, so that a file which displays perfectly well in Acrobat 7 is made unreadable in Acrobat 8.
It turns out that files converted (from the ps file) by the distiller (which costs something like $500) do not have this problem. I guess Adobe is tired of free use of their format. At TAC, we still consider the dvi to be the official format. Michael
Michael Barr writes:
Whatever you do, do not upgrade to Adobe reader 8. I found this on the texhax list.
Has anyone else been clobbered by the discovery that Adobe Acrobat 8 tacitly suppresses all ligature glyphs of the fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl sort and displays blanks in their place. They do this without warning, so that a file which displays perfectly well in Acrobat 7 is made unreadable in Acrobat 8.
It turns out that files converted (from the ps file) by the distiller (which costs something like $500) do not have this problem. I guess Adobe is tired of free use of their format. At TAC, we still consider the dvi to be the official format.
Michael
What is the context? I've been using Adobe Reader 8 on Windows since it first came out and have never seen this, very definitely including pdf files created by pdflatex on both Windows and Linux. As a quick check I just created a number of pdf files in various ways on both Windows and Linux and viewed them in both places using both Adobe Reader 7 and Adobe Reader 8 and was unable to see any difference at all. -- Bob -- Robert L. Knighten RLK@knighten.org
Have you seen this problem yourself? I've been unable to duplicate it on either Linux or Windows XP, using free Acrobat Reader 8.1.1 dated August 20 on both platforms. I put all five ligatures in a latex file and compiled it directly to pdf with pdflatex, then as a double check indirectly with latex to dvi then to ps with dvips then to pdf with ps2pdf. On XP I did this with the latex that comes with Cygwin, on Linux with the latex that comes with Redhat FC4 (old system I haven't upgraded for a while). Is the problem independent of font? Of dvi-to-pdf converter? Of operating system? Etc, etc. Vaughan Michael Barr wrote:
Whatever you do, do not upgrade to Adobe reader 8. I found this on the texhax list.
Has anyone else been clobbered by the discovery that Adobe Acrobat 8 tacitly suppresses all ligature glyphs of the fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl sort and displays blanks in their place. They do this without warning, so that a file which displays perfectly well in Acrobat 7 is made unreadable in Acrobat 8.
It turns out that files converted (from the ps file) by the distiller (which costs something like $500) do not have this problem. I guess Adobe is tired of free use of their format. At TAC, we still consider the dvi to be the official format.
Michael
Mike, I think there may be some confusion here. Adobe Acrobat 8 costs about $450, and it will produce pdf files from various inputs. I assume at this price, it will produce files that Adobe Reader 8 displays properly. Adobe Reader 8 is free, but it only has the capability of displaying pdf files, not creating them. I wonder if it is Reader that's the culprit here, by not displaying the ligatures you list properly if the files are created by some method that doesn't use Acrobat. If so, there's no need to abandon pdf as a preferred format - just caution users to view them in Acrobat 7 until Adobe "fixes the problem" (sic). In particular, using the now- standard methods built into most (La)TeX distributions should still generate pdf files that will display correctly on most pdf apps - Preview.app for Macs and xpdf for Linux or other UNIX-based systems. No longer being a Windows user, I am not sure what alternative pdf file viewers are available for it, but this seems an ideal opportunity for someone to create one to fill an obvious need. In any case, using dvi as the preferred format has its drawbacks. Notably, it is binary, and hence can't be included in emails without extra effort. It also generates files that usually are considerably larger than corresponding pdf files, which makes sending them as email attachments a problem: most email servers now limit the size of attachments (the server at Tulane, which is admittedly more restrictive than most, simply throws such emails away, warning neither the sender nor the receiver), which forces one to place the files online for others to download them. In any case, I think more research is needed before a move like the one you are proposing for TAC is warranted. And, I'd be interested to know the exact nature of the problem. Best regards, Mike On Oct 28, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Michael Barr wrote:
Whatever you do, do not upgrade to Adobe reader 8. I found this on the texhax list.
Has anyone else been clobbered by the discovery that Adobe Acrobat 8 tacitly suppresses all ligature glyphs of the fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl sort and displays blanks in their place. They do this without warning, so that a file which displays perfectly well in Acrobat 7 is made unreadable in Acrobat 8.
It turns out that files converted (from the ps file) by the distiller (which costs something like $500) do not have this problem. I guess Adobe is tired of free use of their format. At TAC, we still consider the dvi to be the official format.
Michael
=============================================== Professor Michael Mislove Phone: +1 504 862-3441 Department of Mathematics FAX: +1 504 865-5063 Tulane University URL: http://www.math.tulane.edu/~mwm New Orleans, LA 70118 USA ===============================================
Michael Barr wrote:
Whatever you do, do not upgrade to Adobe reader 8. I found this on the texhax list.
Has anyone else been clobbered by the discovery that Adobe Acrobat 8 tacitly suppresses all ligature glyphs of the fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl sort and displays blanks in their place. They do this without warning, so that a file which displays perfectly well in Acrobat 7 is made unreadable in Acrobat 8.
It turns out that files converted (from the ps file) by the distiller (which costs something like $500) do not have this problem. I guess Adobe is tired of free use of their format.
Well, I suppose that whether or not this is an accidental bug (and remember, as a famous corollary of Occam's Razor tells us, we should never put down to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity) it will be a short enough time before somebody finds out how Distiller codes these glyphs and publicises it; and one upgrade after that before everybody's DVI->PDF utility follows suit. This does not strike me as a game that Adobe could play for long witout wrecking compatibility with their *own* software. Alternatively, one could presumably remap the glyphs so that Acrobat 8 didn't realize what it was displaying.
At TAC, we still consider the dvi to be the official format.
Fair enough, though dvi has its own "intellectual property" problems with glyphs that the end user doesn't have a copy of. Not such a problem with TAC, I admit, but... -Robert
I have to admit that I never tested it, just copied the complaint from texhax, usually reliable. I just tried it on a file created by dvipdfm (I rarely use pdftex or pdflatex) and it seems fine. I have version 8.1.1. So perhaps it was an early bug, now corrected. But my main point--that we cannot tie our future to commercial software that the proprietor can change at will--remains valid. Michael On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Robert L Knighten wrote:
Michael Barr writes:
Whatever you do, do not upgrade to Adobe reader 8. I found this on the texhax list.
Has anyone else been clobbered by the discovery that Adobe Acrobat 8 tacitly suppresses all ligature glyphs of the fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl sort and displays blanks in their place. They do this without warning, so that a file which displays perfectly well in Acrobat 7 is made unreadable in Acrobat 8.
It turns out that files converted (from the ps file) by the distiller (which costs something like $500) do not have this problem. I guess Adobe is tired of free use of their format. At TAC, we still consider the dvi to be the official format.
Michael
What is the context? I've been using Adobe Reader 8 on Windows since it first came out and have never seen this, very definitely including pdf files created by pdflatex on both Windows and Linux. As a quick check I just created a number of pdf files in various ways on both Windows and Linux and viewed them in both places using both Adobe Reader 7 and Adobe Reader 8 and was unable to see any difference at all.
-- Bob
Hi Mike, in fairness, while Acrobat is commercial software, PDF is not really a proprietary format. The format has been fully and publicly documented since its inception in 1993. The PDF reference manual, like that of PostScript before it, is available from Adobe's website. As far as such technical references are concerned, it is also extremely accessible and well-written. I read the PostScript specification cover to cover, and I found it better than the reference manuals of most other programming languages. Adobe has extended the PDF specification from time to time (they are now at version 1.7). However, they have made an effort to remain backward compatible, and the changes in each version have been clearly and transparently documented. That is more than can be said of most commercial formats. According to their website, they intend to make version 1.7 into an ISO standard. Adobe should also be commended for keeping the PDF specification separate from the Acrobat implementation thereof. The specification is actually written in such a way that it allows arbitrary people to write applications that output PDF code, without having to use Distiller as a conduit. Regarding the reported problems with ligatures - if someone on that texhax list could produce a minimal actual example of a PDF file that displays incorrectly, it should be a relatively simple matter to match that against the PDF specification to determine whether the bug is in Acrobat or in the software that produced the file. Reference: PDF Reference, Sixth Edition, version 1.7 http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html (Note: don't download the link called "PDF Reference and Related Documentation", because it requires - somewhat circularly - to be viewed with Acrobat Reader 8). -- Peter Michael Barr wrote:
I have to admit that I never tested it, just copied the complaint from texhax, usually reliable. I just tried it on a file created by dvipdfm (I rarely use pdftex or pdflatex) and it seems fine. I have version 8.1.1. So perhaps it was an early bug, now corrected.
But my main point--that we cannot tie our future to commercial software that the proprietor can change at will--remains valid.
Michael
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Robert L Knighten wrote:
Michael Barr writes:
Whatever you do, do not upgrade to Adobe reader 8. I found this on the texhax list.
Has anyone else been clobbered by the discovery that Adobe Acrobat 8 tacitly suppresses all ligature glyphs of the fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl sort and displays blanks in their place. They do this without warning, so that a file which displays perfectly well in Acrobat 7 is made unreadable in Acrobat 8.
It turns out that files converted (from the ps file) by the distiller (which costs something like $500) do not have this problem. I guess Adobe is tired of free use of their format. At TAC, we still consider the dvi to be the official format.
Michael
What is the context? I've been using Adobe Reader 8 on Windows since it first came out and have never seen this, very definitely including pdf files created by pdflatex on both Windows and Linux. As a quick check I just created a number of pdf files in various ways on both Windows and Linux and viewed them in both places using both Adobe Reader 7 and Adobe Reader 8 and was unable to see any difference at all.
-- Bob
Hi Mike, in fairness, while Acrobat is commercial software, PDF is not really a proprietary format. The format has been fully and publicly documented since its inception in 1993. The PDF reference manual, like that of PostScript before it, is available from Adobe's website. As far as such technical references are concerned, it is also extremely accessible and well-written. I read the PostScript specification cover to cover, and I found it better than the reference manuals of most other programming languages. Adobe has extended the PDF specification from time to time (they are now at version 1.7). However, they have made an effort to remain backward compatible, and the changes in each version have been clearly and transparently documented. That is more than can be said of most commercial formats. According to their website, they intend to make version 1.7 into an ISO standard. Adobe should also be commended for keeping the PDF specification separate from the Acrobat implementation thereof. The specification is actually written in such a way that it allows arbitrary people to write applications that output PDF code, without having to use Distiller as a conduit. Regarding the reported problems with ligatures - if someone on that texhax list could produce a minimal actual example of a PDF file that displays incorrectly, it should be a relatively simple matter to match that against the PDF specification to determine whether the bug is in Acrobat or in the software that produced the file. Reference: PDF Reference, Sixth Edition, version 1.7 http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html (Note: don't download the link called "PDF Reference and Related Documentation", because it requires - somewhat circularly - to be viewed with Acrobat Reader 8). -- Peter Michael Barr wrote:
I have to admit that I never tested it, just copied the complaint from texhax, usually reliable. I just tried it on a file created by dvipdfm (I rarely use pdftex or pdflatex) and it seems fine. I have version 8.1.1. So perhaps it was an early bug, now corrected.
But my main point--that we cannot tie our future to commercial software that the proprietor can change at will--remains valid.
Michael
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Robert L Knighten wrote:
Michael Barr writes:
Whatever you do, do not upgrade to Adobe reader 8. I found this on the texhax list.
Has anyone else been clobbered by the discovery that Adobe Acrobat 8 tacitly suppresses all ligature glyphs of the fi, fl, ff, ffi, and ffl sort and displays blanks in their place. They do this without warning, so that a file which displays perfectly well in Acrobat 7 is made unreadable in Acrobat 8.
It turns out that files converted (from the ps file) by the distiller (which costs something like $500) do not have this problem. I guess Adobe is tired of free use of their format. At TAC, we still consider the dvi to be the official format.
Michael
What is the context? I've been using Adobe Reader 8 on Windows since it first came out and have never seen this, very definitely including pdf files created by pdflatex on both Windows and Linux. As a quick check I just created a number of pdf files in various ways on both Windows and Linux and viewed them in both places using both Adobe Reader 7 and Adobe Reader 8 and was unable to see any difference at all.
-- Bob
Le lundi 29 octobre 2007 08:05, vous avez écrit :
Mike, I think there may be some confusion here. Adobe Acrobat 8 costs about $450, and it will produce pdf files from various inputs. I assume at this price, it will produce files that Adobe Reader 8 displays properly. Adobe Reader 8 is free, but it only has the capability of displaying pdf files, not creating them. I wonder if it is Reader that's the culprit here, by not displaying the ligatures you list properly if the files are created by some method that doesn't use Acrobat. If so, there's no need to abandon pdf as a preferred format - just caution users to view them in Acrobat 7 until Adobe "fixes the problem" (sic). In particular, using the now- standard methods built into most (La)TeX distributions should still generate pdf files that will display correctly on most pdf apps - Preview.app for Macs and xpdf for Linux or other UNIX-based systems. No longer being a Windows user, I am not sure what alternative pdf
As I already explained to Michael Barr, don't use Acrobat Reader. There exists other excellent pdf file readers. Under linux, xpdf, evince and kpdf (<-- excellent). Probably a lot of free pdf readers exist under other systems. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software>. You don't need to use acrobat softwares to produce and read pdf files. pg.
Michael Barr wrote:
But my main point--that we cannot tie our future to commercial software that the proprietor can change at will--remains valid.
Please do not confuse software and standards. PDF is an open standard, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format, which among other things means that Adobe cannot "take it away" from the public. They can take away their PDF viewer, but this is not an issue as there are a number of other viewers available. I use kpdf (a KDE incarnation of xpdf I believe), for example, and I am perfectly happy with it. As a bonus, kpdf does not display annoying adds in the upper right corner, which the free Adobe reader does. Best regards, Andrej
participants (9)
-
Andrej Bauer -
Gaucher Philippe -
Michael Barr -
Michael Mislove -
Robert J. MacG. Dawson -
Robert L Knighten -
selinger -
selinger＠mathstat.dal.ca -
Vaughan Pratt