Re: Beta page (pdfs)

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
>> >> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
>> >> about how much software can read it successfully.
>>
>> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
>> > suggesting a big thumbs-down,
>>
>> There's a version history at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Versions
>> that shows the main changes between successive PDF versions.
>> I don't actually see much related to compression since 1.4,
>> other than adding JPEG2000 image compression which would certainly
>> not help any for our docs.
>>
>> So at this point I'm wondering if the reported size difference is
>> really PDF-version-related or just indicates inefficiency in the output
>> from pdfjadetex.  If the latter, it might be fixable without creating
>> compatibility problems.  It's not something that interests me enough
>> to put work into, though.
>
> Someone optimized our PDFs using Acrobat Pro 7 for Postgres 8.1:
>
>        http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-11/msg00067.php
>        http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-12/msg00007.php
>
> This was to speed up rendering, but it might have reduced file size too.
> Are we doing this with our current docs?
>
> --
>  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
>  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
>
>  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>

Once again, if anyone wants it - let me know where to put them - or I
can post a link for retrieval.

Acrobat 7 has been out > 5 years.
--
Mike Ellsworth