Alright, the discussion is hopefully over now =) I only want to add, that what you say is true concerning me but your response seem to imply that i was attacking you - the post was only directed to Bill.
Finally, Leo wrote me that the concerning issue (URL Bug) is fixed in Reader 9. --- On Fri, 6/6/08, Bruno Lowagie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Bruno Lowagie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [iText-questions] click on image and open the attachment > To: "Post all your questions about iText here" > <itext-questions@lists.sourceforge.net> > Date: Friday, June 6, 2008, 3:33 AM > Harakiri wrote: > > Great - best useless input i read for a while - > congrats! > > Please note that Bill has provided valuable input in the > past, > on the list as well as personally. I consider him as a > friend > of the project as well as a personal friend. > > > 1. If you think it does not belong to itext list - why > didnt you just simply reply to me ONLY - and not > "spam" the list with you personal opinons - you > should follow your own advice here > > I think that Bill's remark was triggered by the tone of > your > original post, more than because of the subject. > > The subject "What is supported in Adobe Reader / What > isn't?" > is "on topic" on this list. For instance: I had a > similar > concern a while ago regarding MarkUp annotations. > > I don't think Bill reacted to the "content" > of what you were > saying. I think his response originated from what I would > call > "Adobe bashing" and your more or less personal > attack towards > Leonard. Fortunately Leonard doesn't have my temper ;-) > > I think you and I are more alike. When we face something we > don't > like, we respond (not always in the most diplomatic way). > > Sure, you mentioned a problem to Adobe / Leonard a long > time ago. > Sure, it took some time before Adobe did something about > the problem > and if I understand you correctly, you fear that there are > still > some issues of which you fear they won't be fixed in > Reader 9. > > But if we are indeed alike, you'll understand me when I > say that > your reaction wasn't very constructive, but on the > contrary > counter-productive. Unfortunately I know this from my own > experience. On the other hand, our temper means that > we're > passionate people and people that are passionate about > something > are important too. > > Your remark is valid and a genuine concern. Other people > have > had similar concerns about iText. Nevertheless we have also > 'ignored' bug reports in the past: because we lack > the time, > or simply 'because we forgot' (we are human too). > > You may say that there's a big difference between a > community > such as the iText community and a large major company such > as > Adobe (and there is, I won't deny that), but my > experience with > large corporations (for instance IBM), is that it's > HARDER for > developers to introduce new features, to fix bugs, to > 'do the > right thing' (developer wise) than for us. > > If we want to fix something, we have the freedom to do so. > If a developer or an adviser at a major company wants to > fix > something, it has to go through a decision process and that > can > be a long chain (I don't know how it works at Adobe, > but I know > from developers at SUN and IBM that this can be very > frustrating > at times). I think you were wrong when you were angry with > Leonard. > It doesn't hurt to repeat a question if it's valid > (and in your > case it was), but it doesn't help anybody when you use > language > such as "in their infinite wisdom." > > Again: I know this BECAUSE I AM VERY MUCH LIKE YOU. > I also use language like that ;-) > I also don't agree with some of Adobe's decisions, > but... > I understand that they are not always inspired by Adobe > developers > or by people like Leonard; they are inspired by the fact > that Adobe > is a highly commercial company and stock holders expect it > to make > money. > > Also I think that it's a advantage for both Adobe and > the iText > community if we work together. For us it's important to > have Leonard > on this list to guide us when it comes to interpreting the > PDF > Reference. For Adobe it's important to have iText for > instance now > that the specification is an Open Standard. See > yesterday's remarks: > a competitor could make its own extensions, but if the > iText > community decides to prefer Adobe's extensions > competitors > will have a hard time penetrating the market. > > Adobe and iText may have different goals, but that > doesn't > mean our goals can't be complementary. I know that > I'm naive > (and most of the times I consider that as a virtue), but I > believe that we can all benefit more if we maintain (maybe > even improve) the current symbiosis than if we start > competing. > > > 2. The subject is still for the original thread - if i > would > > change it - you couldnt easly follow it in mail > archives like nabble > > I don't have an opinion about that. > What you say is true for the 'Save' problem. > I don't know if it's true for the URL problem. > > > 3. This issue directly concerns itext too - because > the bug was here > > first reported > > That's another thing why it's good for Adobe that > iText exists. > Leonard realizes that (that's why he invests time in > this list), > but I'm sure it's not always obvious for Leonard to > keep Adobe > as a company convinced that "iText is good for > them". > > > and I'm pretty sure that other pdf developers want > to > > know that such a quirk exists (only using urls with > max 233 chars > > is a huge issue) and if it will be fixed in the > upcoming adobe reader version > > Yes, and I'm 99% sure that Leonard will check this. > > As a developer however, I know (and I'm sure you know > too) > that some things that seem like a detail that should be > "easy to fix" when you look at it from the > outside, aren't > always as easy when you look at it on the inside. > > > have a nice day > > Actually I'm having a nice day, because we've had > some good > news regarding Inigo's surgery. The analysis of the > tissue > they've removed from his leg isn't finished yet, > but already > they are sure that more than 90% of the malicious cancer > cells > were killed. This means he won't need heavier > chemotherapy. > In other words: when I talked about the 'best case > scenario' > three months ago, I can now say that we are 'still on > schedule' > for this scenario. We are now at 1/3 of the total treatment > (about six more months of chemo treatment to go). > > best regards, > Bruno > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. > It's the best place to buy or sell services for > just about anything Open Source. > http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php > _______________________________________________ > iText-questions mailing list > iText-questions@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/itext-questions > > Do you like iText? > Buy the iText book: http://www.1t3xt.com/docs/book.php > Or leave a tip: https://tipit.to/itexttipjar ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ iText-questions mailing list iText-questions@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/itext-questions Do you like iText? Buy the iText book: http://www.1t3xt.com/docs/book.php Or leave a tip: https://tipit.to/itexttipjar
