On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 15:46 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 13:50 +, Camaleón wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 May 2010 08:52:21 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 10:05 +, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> > >> Linux PDF "readers" are in a very good sh
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:32:23PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 02:22 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> But in either case, for users who care about their Freedom, both Flash
>> and Javascript are real threats, because even if you use a Free Software
>> implementation of the lan
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 06:16:11PM +0200, Sjoerd Hardeman uttered:
> Op 15-05-10 14:43, Steve Fishpaste schreef:
> > On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 01:08:43AM +0200, Michelle Konzack uttered:
> >> Hello Steve Fishpaste,
> >>
> >> Am 2010-05-14 18:48:21, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> >>> There are some
IE6 in on the way out.
I didn't say it would be easy. But I can advocate, right?
MAA
Sure :-)
--
Bye,
Goran Dobosevic
Hrvatski: www.dobosevic.com
English: www.dobosevic.com/en/
Registered Linux User #503414
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subjec
On Sat, 15 May 2010 18:25:22 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 20:31 +, Camaleón wrote:
>> 2/ Printer settings (in CUPS) and PDF viewer settings paper size for
>> printing. These values are also important, I mean, if you are sending a
>> PDF file with a custom size yo
On 5/15/2010 11:50 PM, godo wrote:
In fact, that is what I advocate: Improving Javascript.
Also, note: Do not confuse Javascript with Java. Two entirely different
animals.
MAA
Is it really possible in real life?
I mean you can have 100% nice working javascript but probably will not
working
In fact, that is what I advocate: Improving Javascript.
Also, note: Do not confuse Javascript with Java. Two entirely different
animals.
MAA
Is it really possible in real life?
I mean you can have 100% nice working javascript but probably will not
working how it should in IE because M$ hav
>> I'm not judging whether that attitude is right or not, I'm just giving
>> it as an explanation why you don't see good support for PDF
>> editing here. It's a problem that most people don't even bump into
>> (except when they receive forms from the Windows world).
>
> I would disagree.
You don
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 20:31 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 15:46:36 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 13:50 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
> >> Mmmm... I'm not sure to fully understand the problem :-?
>
> (...)
>
> >> Is that what are you referring about or
On Sat, 15 May 2010 15:46:36 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 13:50 +, Camaleón wrote:
>> Mmmm... I'm not sure to fully understand the problem :-?
(...)
>> Is that what are you referring about or are you (or your clients)
>> experiencig another problem?
> In this
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 13:50 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 08:52:21 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 10:05 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
> >> Linux PDF "readers" are in a very good shape. In fact, I don't even
> >> have Acrobat Reader installed on my linux s
On 5/15/2010 11:16 AM, Sjoerd Hardeman wrote:
Op 15-05-10 14:43, Steve Fishpaste schreef:
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 01:08:43AM +0200, Michelle Konzack uttered:
Hello Steve Fishpaste,
Am 2010-05-14 18:48:21, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
There are some printers that use GNU/FLOSS to you know.
Op 15-05-10 14:43, Steve Fishpaste schreef:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 01:08:43AM +0200, Michelle Konzack uttered:
>> Hello Steve Fishpaste,
>>
>> Am 2010-05-14 18:48:21, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>>> There are some printers that use GNU/FLOSS to you know. 8) Got to be
>>> careful being so inc
On 5/14/2010 6:13 PM, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Hello Mark Allums,
Am 2010-05-14 07:39:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
Flash may not be a priority, sense it performs two functions. One,
it acts as the standard web video player. Two, it tries to be a
standard web programming interface and SD
On Sat, 15 May 2010 08:52:21 -0400, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 10:05 +, Camaleón wrote:
>> Linux PDF "readers" are in a very good shape. In fact, I don't even
>> have Acrobat Reader installed on my linux systems.
> I thought this, too, until recently when working wit
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 10:05 +, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2010 01:07:28 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Linux PDF "readers" are in a very good shape. In fact, I don't even have
> Acrobat Reader installed on my linux systems.
I thought this, too, until recently when working with compan
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 01:08:43AM +0200, Michelle Konzack uttered:
> Hello Steve Fishpaste,
>
> Am 2010-05-14 18:48:21, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> > There are some printers that use GNU/FLOSS to you know. 8) Got to be
> > careful being so inclusive. There are many uses for PDFs other than
On Sat, 15 May 2010 01:07:28 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello Camaleón,
>
> Am 2010-05-14 21:39:38, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
>> You must be kidding. Or at least you must be unaware about the
>> existence of pdftk toolkit, iTex and gnupdf library, xournal or
>> pdfedit, a set of appli
On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:27:32 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2010-05-14 19:06:06, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
(...)
>> So the reality is that anyone wanting to view a flash based site has to
>> have Adobe Flash player installed as is the only one able to fully
>> support all the feature
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 21:47 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 09:20 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > I would disagree. It was quite enlightening to see one of our clients
> > work in a highly paperless way. They received FAXes via email as pdfs,
> > open them in Acrobat,
On 05/14/2010 09:20 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
[snip]
I would disagree. It was quite enlightening to see one of our clients
work in a highly paperless way. They received FAXes via email as pdfs,
open them in Acrobat, deskew, ocr to grab text for other documents based
on those faxes, make
>In fact,
>they are desperately trying to move away >from Windows and Acrobat is the
>major stumbling block - John
Hi,
Considering that acrobat has been there for (more than) a few years, it'll be
hard to dislodge them from the majority of users.. Any thoughts on this??
RJB
Sent from my BlackBe
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 21:52 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > There are many situations where the user has the PDF file but lacks the
> > original document, and if you want to perform any modification in that
> > file, we (linux users) are stuck :-/
>
> But in the Free Software world, we usually
> There are many situations where the user has the PDF file but lacks the
> original document, and if you want to perform any modification in that
> file, we (linux users) are stuck :-/
But in the Free Software world, we usually consider that not having the
course is a problem in itself. Being
Hello Celejar,
Am 2010-05-14 18:27:56, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> No idea where you get your 'facts' from:
>
> "On May 1, 2008, Adobe dropped its licensing restrictions on the SWF
> format specifications, as part of the Open Screen Project."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWF#History
>
Hello Stefan Monnier,
Am 2010-05-14 15:22:41, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Actually, I'd be interested to know what are those other 999.
> AFAIK Javascript and Flash are the only games in town. And in some
> areas (e.g. modern furniture companies come to mind), Flash-based
> websites is the
Hello Eduardo M KALINOWSKI,
Am 2010-05-14 16:04:37, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> On Sex, 14 Mai 2010, Mark Allums wrote:
> >On 5/14/2010 1:39 PM, Celejar wrote:
> >>- there are serious sites that require Flash.
> >
> >Yes, what a pity! Sad...
>
> ... especially because most of the time the
Hello Mark Allums,
Am 2010-05-14 07:39:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Flash may not be a priority, sense it performs two functions. One,
> it acts as the standard web video player. Two, it tries to be a
> standard web programming interface and SDK.
>
> The former is becoming mooted by th
Hello Steve Fishpaste,
Am 2010-05-14 18:48:21, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> There are some printers that use GNU/FLOSS to you know. 8) Got to be
> careful being so inclusive. There are many uses for PDFs other than
> for archival purposes. Printers for example take PDFs and often need to 'edi
Hello Camaleón,
Am 2010-05-14 21:39:38, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> You must be kidding. Or at least you must be unaware about the existence
> of pdftk toolkit, iTex and gnupdf library, xournal or pdfedit, a set of
> applications and frameworks available in this "GNU/Linux world", intended
Hello John A. Sullivan III,
Am 2010-05-14 15:47:01, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 14:24 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > But, but, but... you're not *supposed* to edit PDF files!
> That may have been the original idea but creativity finds ingenious ways
> to use tools in way
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 04:18:51PM -0400, Stefan Monnier uttered:
> > Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
> > for a PDF editor that can compete with Acrobat Professional.
>
> In the GNU/Linux world, being able to edit PDF files is not considered
> as a worthwh
Hello John A. Sullivan III,
Am 2010-05-14 15:43:09, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> Yes, exactly. We are hoping that, as we build our business and become
> cash positive, a part of our profits can be used to shore up those areas
> where FOSS is still weak as a desktop solution. We have just pu
Hello John A. Sullivan III,
Am 2010-05-14 07:14:18, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> That comment really strikes home. We are working on a potential major
> Windows desktop replacement project. The two things that are absolutely
> killing us are email and a viable substitute for Acrobat Standar
On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:03:20 +0200
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Hello Celejar,
>
> Am 2010-05-13 19:31:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> > I always thought that the reason for all the trouble with Flash on
> > Linux is that Flash was a closed standard. If the spec is published,
> > why are the
Hello Camaleón,
Am 2010-05-14 19:06:06, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> What I wanted to say is that in the event I had to choose a format for
> delivering my work, I -for sure- wouldn't go for Flash, although Adobe
> claims is "open".
>
> OTOH, as many others have pointed out, Flash format m
Hello Celejar,
Am 2010-05-13 19:31:47, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
> I always thought that the reason for all the trouble with Flash on
> Linux is that Flash was a closed standard. If the spec is published,
> why are the FLOSS players so far behind Adobe's player? Is it just
> that difficult
On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:18:51 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
>> for a PDF editor that can compete with Acrobat Professional.
>
> In the GNU/Linux world, being able to edit PDF files is not considered
> as a worthwhile featur
On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:26:32 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 09:58 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> O.k. here is what I was looking for:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWF#Licensing
>>
>>
> Which I mentioned very early in this thread...
Sorry then. I didn't notice.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
> Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
> for a PDF editor that can compete with Acrobat Professional.
In the GNU/Linux world, being able to edit PDF files is not considered
as a worthwhile feature. Better edit the file in some other format, and
only use PDF fo
On 5/14/2010 2:22 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
I always perceived a lack of interest. Few people really want to work
on it, it seems. I root for Gnash, but I go ahead and use Adobe's
non-free player.
As long as you use adobe's player, you're not really rooting for Gnash.
It comes down to optio
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:22, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>Javascript are real threats, because even if you use a Free Software
> implementation of the language, the code run in each web-page will
> usually be 100% proprietary.
Oh come on. You might as well complain that the HTML of most
web pages do
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 14:24 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 01:40 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:31 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 05/14/2010 06:14 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote:
> >>>
> Look
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 14:22 -0500, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Friday 14 May 2010 13:40:35 John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:31 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On 05/14/2010 06:14 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote
On 05/14/2010 02:22 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
[snip]
But in either case, for users who care about their Freedom, both Flash
and Javascript are real threats, because even if you use a Free Software
implementation of the language, the code run in each web-page will
usually be 100% proprietary.
On 05/14/2010 09:58 AM, Camaleón wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:45:36 +0200, Artifex Maximus wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Camaleón wrote:
Can we (we=people) make our own Flash implementation by using Adobe
Flash specs?
Yes. "Developers are now free to implement what is documented
On 05/14/2010 01:40 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:31 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 05/14/2010 06:14 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote:
Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
for a PDF ed
> I always perceived a lack of interest. Few people really want to work
> on it, it seems. I root for Gnash, but I go ahead and use Adobe's
> non-free player.
As long as you use adobe's player, you're not really rooting for Gnash.
> The former is becoming mooted by the advent of HTML5. The lat
On Friday 14 May 2010 13:40:35 John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:31 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 05/14/2010 06:14 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote:
> > >> Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) sti
On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:39:58 +0200, Artifex Maximus wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:45:36 +0200, Artifex Maximus wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>>
Oh, no, but... If W3C does not trust "Flash" technology to be
On Sex, 14 Mai 2010, Mark Allums wrote:
On 5/14/2010 1:39 PM, Celejar wrote:
- there are serious sites that require Flash.
Yes, what a pity! Sad...
... especially because most of the time the same funcionality could be
achieve without Flash.
--
All people are born alike -- except Repu
On 5/14/2010 1:39 PM, Celejar wrote:
- there are serious sites that require Flash.
Yes, what a pity! Sad...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4bed9
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 07:51 -0400, Steve Fishpaste wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 07:14:18AM -0400, John A. Sullivan III uttered:
> > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> > > Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
> > > for a PDF editor that
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:31 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 06:14 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote:
> >
> >> Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
> >> for a PDF editor that can compete with Acrobat Pr
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:45:36 +0200, Artifex Maximus wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>>> Oh, no, but... If W3C does not trust "Flash" technology to be included
>>> as one of their recommended standards, why should I?
[Thanks to everyone who responded.]
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:39:47 -0500
Mark Allums wrote:
> On 5/13/2010 6:31 PM, Celejar wrote:
> > Adobe claims that they publish the Flash specs:
> > http://www.adobe.com/choice/openmarkets.html
> >
> > I always thought that the reason for all the trouble with
On Fri, 14 May 2010 15:45:36 +0200, Artifex Maximus wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> Can we (we=people) make our own Flash implementation by using Adobe
>> Flash specs?
>
> Yes. "Developers are now free to implement what is documented in the
> specifications without r
Camaleón wrote:
> Can we (we=people) make our own Flash implementation by using Adobe Flash
> specs?
>
Avi writes:
> Yes.
How far in advance of each new release do they publish the new
specifications? How much is patented?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.d
Camaleón wrote:
Can we (we=people) make our own Flash implementation by using Adobe Flash
specs?
Yes.
--
Avi Greenbury
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debia
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:32:10 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2010 07:04 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_specifications
"An open specification is not controlled by a single company or
individual o
On Fri, 14 May 2010 07:32:10 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 07:04 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>> "The SWF file format is available as an open specification ..."
>>
>> I hope that is more than "pretty words" :-)
>
> Do we say that about the thousands of RFCs written by people at
> companies?
On 5/13/2010 6:31 PM, Celejar wrote:
Adobe claims that they publish the Flash specs:
http://www.adobe.com/choice/openmarkets.html
I always thought that the reason for all the trouble with Flash on
Linux is that Flash was a closed standard. If the spec is published,
why are the FLOSS players so
On 05/14/2010 07:04 AM, Camaleón wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:37:44 +0200, Artifex Maximus wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Camaleón wrote:
"Published" does not means FLOSS or GPL. I would like to know what is
the licence of Flash :-)
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/
"The SWF fil
On Sex, 14 Mai 2010, Camaleón wrote:
a/ That I can modify the code of Flash without any fear of Adobe being
suing me :-)
The Adobe Flash player is, as far as I know, not open source. The code
is not publicly available.
But you seem to be confusing one implementation of the Flash spec
(don
On Fri, 14 May 2010 13:37:44 +0200, Artifex Maximus wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>> "Published" does not means FLOSS or GPL. I would like to know what is
>> the licence of Flash :-)
>
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/
>
> "The SWF file format is available as an op
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 07:14:18AM -0400, John A. Sullivan III uttered:
> On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote:
>
> > Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
> > for a PDF editor that can compete with Acrobat Professional.
>
> That comment really stri
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:00:51 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>> On 05/14/2010 04:32 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>
You seems to be conflating 3 different entities: 1. Adobe Flash
2. Adobe Flash Player
3. SWF file format
>>>
>>> AFAIK:
>>>
>>> #
On 05/14/2010 06:14 AM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote:
Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
for a PDF editor that can compete with Acrobat Professional.
That comment really strikes home. We are working on a po
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 06:52 +, Camaleón wrote:
> Look at PDF. PDF became a ISO/IEC standard but we (at linux) still lack
> for a PDF editor that can compete with Acrobat Professional.
That comment really strikes home. We are working on a potential major
Windows desktop replacement project.
On Fri, 14 May 2010 05:00:51 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 04:32 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>>> You seems to be conflating 3 different entities: 1. Adobe Flash
>>> 2. Adobe Flash Player
>>> 3. SWF file format
>>
>> AFAIK:
>>
>> #1 As per Wikipedia → Licence: Proprietary EULA (it can be wrong
On 05/14/2010 04:32 AM, Camaleón wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 04:12:03 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 05/14/2010 02:42 AM, Camaleón wrote:
Then, there must be an error in Wikipedia "Adobe Flash¹" page.
Not at all.
It says: "Licence: Proprietary EULA">:-)
¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe
On Fri, 14 May 2010 04:12:03 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 02:42 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> Then, there must be an error in Wikipedia "Adobe Flash¹" page.
>
> Not at all.
>
>> It says: "Licence: Proprietary EULA">:-)
>>
>> ¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash
>>
>>
> You seems to
On 05/14/2010 02:42 AM, Camaleón wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2010 02:16:21 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 05/14/2010 01:52 AM, Camaleón wrote:
***
http://www.openmedianow.org/?q=node/21
"(...) One reason for the lack of excitement over the project in the
free software world is that it omits "huge a
On Fri, 14 May 2010 02:16:21 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/14/2010 01:52 AM, Camaleón wrote:
>> ***
>> http://www.openmedianow.org/?q=node/21
>>
>> "(...) One reason for the lack of excitement over the project in the
>> free software world is that it omits "huge amounts" of information
>> nee
On 05/14/2010 01:52 AM, Camaleón wrote:
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:31:47 -0400, Celejar wrote:
Adobe claims that they publish the Flash specs:
(...)
http://www.adobe.com/choice/openmarkets.html
Mmmm, and there are others that think this is not enough:
***
http://www.openmedianow.org/?q=node/
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:31:47 -0400, Celejar wrote:
> Adobe claims that they publish the Flash specs:
>
(...)
> http://www.adobe.com/choice/openmarkets.html
Mmmm, and there are others that think this is not enough:
***
http://www.openmedianow.org/?q=node/21
"(...) One reason for the lack of e
On Thu, 13 May 2010 19:35:06 -0500
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 05/13/2010 06:31 PM, Celejar wrote:
> > Adobe claims that they publish the Flash specs:
...
> > http://www.adobe.com/choice/openmarkets.html
> >
> > I always thought that the reason for all the trouble with Flash on
> > Linux is that Fl
On 05/13/2010 06:31 PM, Celejar wrote:
Adobe claims that they publish the Flash specs:
"That, certainly, was what we learned as we launched PostScript® and
PDF, two early and powerful software solutions that work across
platforms. We openly published the specifications for both, thus
inviting bo
Adobe claims that they publish the Flash specs:
"That, certainly, was what we learned as we launched PostScript® and
PDF, two early and powerful software solutions that work across
platforms. We openly published the specifications for both, thus
inviting both use and competition. In the early days
79 matches
Mail list logo
