pcbo

i understand your frustration. not serving as an excuse of course, we had a great deal of work in your hands when this document was written. anyway, i think most of its content is pretty accurate. by the way, which alternatives (that are not mentioned) are you talking about?

lleurs

There is more wrong with this document than half of its content being a direct copy and paste of web pages. It describes QuarkXPress as being a major competitor to PostScript, which it isn't and never was. It fails to mention any of the real alternatives to PDF that at some point in time existed. There are some obvious inaccuracies such as the insistence that PDF as a standard is completely in the hands of Adobe, which already wasn't the case when this document was written. There is the misinformation about the 3D-capabilities of PDF.

pcbo

this course's professor requested that all students put the webpages/papers in the appendix. probably didn't have time to go and visit all the websites...being responsible for a great deal of courses, phd's, etc... i guess the professor was/is quite busy :) sorry for not asking for permission though. we did our best in the short period of time we had.

lleurs

I would have appreciated if the author would have gotten in touch before blatantly copying pages from my web site in this document. He doesn't even manage to write the URL properly. In fact there are a number of other inaccuracies in the text as well, making this more a quick&dirty copy-and-paste job than an actual academic analysis.

soldadodelaluz

goooood, very good