FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:23 AM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

Le lundi 19 novembre 2007 à 08:08 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> - shipping the higher quality document helps the user more than shipping
> a lower quality document

Why would the XML-based document be lower quality? If dblatex is used
for generating the PDF, it should look just as good.

--
.'`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:33 PM
Don Armstrong
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > - the source is present, no freedom is taken: The document is present,
> > > the source code.
> > > - the pdf can be regenerated albeit with minor quality.
> >
> > Thats different to "relies on not-available fonts".
> > Relies == cant be build without them.
>
> Recreating the exact same pdf (modulo creation date etc) relies on these
> fonts. Recreating the same document with different fonts, and thus with
> different layout and appearance is possible.

Then why distribute the original PDFs at all in that case? Just
distribute the recreations. You're going to have to distribute them at
some point if bugs in the documentation are filed, so you might as
well just start distributing them.


Don Armstrong

--
Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you. If you don't
bet, you can't win.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p240

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 08:37 PM
Don Armstrong
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > I think we need to make a difference here if upstream's original
> > document is the pdf - or if the pdf was created from xml/tex/... source.
> > It's not common to create documentations as pdf file in pdfedit or Adobe
> > Acrobat, but it may happen, and then they should be allowed in main
> > (probably after checking for embedded fonts).
>
> Completely agreed. What would be the source in this case?

The source code is (as always) the form that the author would actually
use to edit the work (or the closest digital representation thereof if
the form is a non-digital object.)

If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,
it's the tex. (Even if the PDFs were (for the sake of discussion)
exactly identical.)


Don Armstrong

--
I'd never hurt another living thing.
But if I did...
It would be you.
-- Chris Bishop http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 11-19-2007, 09:28 PM
Don Armstrong
 
Default What to do when the LaTeX sources are missing, but an XML equivalent was rewritten from scratch ?

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 19 Nov 2007, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the author uses the pdf, it's the pdf. If the author uses the tex,
>
> Umpf, how do you proof/ensure that the source of a pdf is the pdf? I
> hope you don't trust the "PDF Producer" field and similar?

You can't ensure anything. The most you can do is look at the work and
consider what the most likely method of producing that work is. If the
author claims otherwise, you (and the ftpmasters) have to decide
whether you believe the author or not. [And frankly, if the author is
making PDFs insanely, using their software may not be particularly
useful, either.]

> So, we are settled, I could - just for the sake of discussion - say
> that the sources of all our pdfs are the pdfs itself, just altered
> to mentiond pdftex in ther "PDF Producers" field, but this is just a
> joke.

You'll note that I don't say anything about what you say the source
is. I talk about what the author *uses*. Since you're not the author,
and it's apparently obvious, even to you, that the PDFs came from tex
source, that's what we should assume.

> Don't get me wrong: I agree with you that the source of the pdf is
> the pdf and SHOULD BE included in Debian. But I want to get more
> than that. I want to get the freedom to design.

I'm not sure that I follow you here.


Don Armstrong

--
The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion ... refutes its thesis
far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored
effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all
the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting
on it--and is just as likely to succeed.
-- Alex Kozinski in Silveira V Lockyer

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org