Re: Beta page (pdfs)

2010/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> 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.

Looks like a bloat issue to me. Just used jPDF Tweak on the file and
it compresses it down to 7.2MB, and still remains a 1.4 PDF.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935