reinventing the pdf wheel

since people have an affinity to paper copies, printing has become an issue
with some reports i'm generating. it seems incovenient to the end-users to
have to set the orientation to landscape and their margins to 0.25 - which
results in a beautiful report. they want a link to download a pdf version
that fills all of their needs/wants - something to store/print without
having to muck with printer settings.

i've looked at fpdf for generating the pdf itself, but i'd really love not
having to create a wrapper for it that will take the html and feed it to
fpdf including the @media print css that is applied. is there something out
there that would do this already? i'd love to use an ob_start callback to
pump the html to said wrapper and be done with it.

ideas, suggestions?

if only you could get a browser to honor orientation and margin css
directives!

tia,

me

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

http://sourceforge.net/projects/tcpdf/ ???

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:WO9Ki.39$kv3.0@newsfe12.lga...
> since people have an affinity to paper copies, printing has become an
> issue with some reports i'm generating. it seems incovenient to the
> end-users to have to set the orientation to landscape and their margins to
> 0.25 - which results in a beautiful report. they want a link to download a
> pdf version that fills all of their needs/wants - something to store/print
> without having to muck with printer settings.
>
> i've looked at fpdf for generating the pdf itself, but i'd really love not
> having to create a wrapper for it that will take the html and feed it to
> fpdf including the @media print css that is applied. is there something
> out there that would do this already? i'd love to use an ob_start callback
> to pump the html to said wrapper and be done with it.
>
> ideas, suggestions?
>
> if only you could get a browser to honor orientation and margin css
> directives!

I *so* don't get how this is a problem.
When I use media-print CSS stylesheets - I get exactly what I specify in the
CSS file.
And as far as I can tell - it comes out the same on every printer.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:RJaKi.51863$Um6.40635@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:WO9Ki.39$kv3.0@newsfe12.lga...
>> since people have an affinity to paper copies, printing has become an
>> issue with some reports i'm generating. it seems incovenient to the
>> end-users to have to set the orientation to landscape and their margins
>> to 0.25 - which results in a beautiful report. they want a link to
>> download a pdf version that fills all of their needs/wants - something to
>> store/print without having to muck with printer settings.
>>
>> i've looked at fpdf for generating the pdf itself, but i'd really love
>> not having to create a wrapper for it that will take the html and feed it
>> to fpdf including the @media print css that is applied. is there
>> something out there that would do this already? i'd love to use an
>> ob_start callback to pump the html to said wrapper and be done with it.
>>
>> ideas, suggestions?
>>
>> if only you could get a browser to honor orientation and margin css
>> directives!
>
> I *so* don't get how this is a problem.
> When I use media-print CSS stylesheets - I get exactly what I specify in
> the CSS file.

i *so* don't get it either. maybe i've got a type-o or am
referencing/misspelling the attribute. would you post your media print
sample to print landscape with all margins at 0.25"

thx

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in news:WO9Ki.39$kv3.0@newsfe12.lga:

> since people have an affinity to paper copies, printing has become an
> issue with some reports i'm generating. it seems incovenient to the
> end-users to have to set the orientation to landscape and their
> margins to 0.25 - which results in a beautiful report. they want a
> link to download a pdf version that fills all of their needs/wants -
> something to store/print without having to muck with printer settings.
>
> i've looked at fpdf for generating the pdf itself, but i'd really love
> not having to create a wrapper for it that will take the html and feed
> it to fpdf including the @media print css that is applied. is there
> something out there that would do this already? i'd love to use an
> ob_start callback to pump the html to said wrapper and be done with
> it.
>
> ideas, suggestions?

I prepare nice-looking, properly formatted PDFs quite often via PHP, but
I don't know if my solution is feasible for you. My solution is the
product Prince (http://www.princexml.com/ ) which is able to take XML
(ie: XHTML) or even just plain HTML and turn it into a PDF with *full
and complete CSS support*. It's bloody brilliant, but here's the
"unfeasible (infeasible?)" part: it costs $3800USD for a server license.

That being said, if you send them a nice email when you're ready to buy
it (you can d/l a free working version that outputs watermarks) and
plead "im poor", they might offer you a discount (we got it at half the
price - the PDFs we're generating aren't really making us more money).

So, I fopen my php page, echo/save it as a .html file, then send the
html file to Prince via the PHP api class they supply.

I must say it works *brilliantly* and really there is no other product
on the market that comes even remotely close in terms of functionality
and ease of use. You can set page margins, footers, headers, page
numbering, font embedding, bookmarks, security settings, etc etc. Visit
the website for more info. Their tech support is fantastic, and a few
'requests' that I've made quickly found their way into published
releases.

For those who understand that good PDF output requires more than
printing from the browser with a "print" stylesheet, this is the product
for you.

I am a highly satisfied customer!

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Good Man" wrote in message
news:Xns99B69570EDD3Fsonicyouth@216.196.97.131...
> "Steve" wrote in news:WO9Ki.39$kv3.0@newsfe12.lga:
>
>> since people have an affinity to paper copies, printing has become an
>> issue with some reports i'm generating. it seems incovenient to the
>> end-users to have to set the orientation to landscape and their
>> margins to 0.25 - which results in a beautiful report. they want a
>> link to download a pdf version that fills all of their needs/wants -
>> something to store/print without having to muck with printer settings.
>>
>> i've looked at fpdf for generating the pdf itself, but i'd really love
>> not having to create a wrapper for it that will take the html and feed
>> it to fpdf including the @media print css that is applied. is there
>> something out there that would do this already? i'd love to use an
>> ob_start callback to pump the html to said wrapper and be done with
>> it.
>>
>> ideas, suggestions?
>
> I prepare nice-looking, properly formatted PDFs quite often via PHP, but
> I don't know if my solution is feasible for you. My solution is the
> product Prince (http://www.princexml.com/ ) which is able to take XML
> (ie: XHTML) or even just plain HTML and turn it into a PDF with *full
> and complete CSS support*. It's bloody brilliant, but here's the
> "unfeasible (infeasible?)" part: it costs $3800USD for a server license.
>
> That being said, if you send them a nice email when you're ready to buy
> it (you can d/l a free working version that outputs watermarks) and
> plead "im poor", they might offer you a discount (we got it at half the
> price - the PDFs we're generating aren't really making us more money).
>
> So, I fopen my php page, echo/save it as a .html file, then send the
> html file to Prince via the PHP api class they supply.
>
> I must say it works *brilliantly* and really there is no other product
> on the market that comes even remotely close in terms of functionality
> and ease of use. You can set page margins, footers, headers, page
> numbering, font embedding, bookmarks, security settings, etc etc. Visit
> the website for more info. Their tech support is fantastic, and a few
> 'requests' that I've made quickly found their way into published
> releases.
>
> For those who understand that good PDF output requires more than
> printing from the browser with a "print" stylesheet, this is the product
> for you.
>
> I am a highly satisfied customer!

thanks for the response.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:iQaKi.22$n96.21@newsfe06.lga...

> i *so* don't get it either. maybe i've got a type-o or am
> referencing/misspelling the attribute. would you post your media print
> sample to print landscape with all margins at 0.25"

body {
onload: javascript:'alert("When printer dialogue is displayed, make sure
to select -landscape-.")';
}

.... or something like it.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:QAhKi.1186$hI7.351@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:iQaKi.22$n96.21@newsfe06.lga...
>
>> i *so* don't get it either. maybe i've got a type-o or am
>> referencing/misspelling the attribute. would you post your media print
>> sample to print landscape with all margins at 0.25"
>
> body {
> onload: javascript:'alert("When printer dialogue is displayed, make
> sure to select -landscape-.")';
> }
>
> ... or something like it.

please tell me you're joking, right? i'm taking about using css to set
margins and page orientation...not the user. but, i know the above is a
joke.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:uTlKi.116$n96.31@newsfe06.lga...
>
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
> news:QAhKi.1186$hI7.351@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>> "Steve" wrote in message
>> news:iQaKi.22$n96.21@newsfe06.lga...
>>
>>> i *so* don't get it either. maybe i've got a type-o or am
>>> referencing/misspelling the attribute. would you post your media print
>>> sample to print landscape with all margins at 0.25"
>>
>> body {
>> onload: javascript:'alert("When printer dialogue is displayed, make
>> sure to select -landscape-.")';
>> }
>>
>> ... or something like it.
>
> please tell me you're joking, right? i'm taking about using css to set
> margins and page orientation...not the user. but, i know the above is a
> joke.

No joke.

What you are thinking of is the page media "size" property and its
"landscape" and "portrait" values.

They were around in CSS 2 but were dropped in CSS 2.1. They are
re-introduced in CSS 3 but nobody actually supports them. IE is unlikely to
support them for a long time, as it still doesn't support even CSS 2.1
properly.

No support === not usable so instructing the user is the next best thing.

Google groups for and settle down for a good read :-)

--
Richard.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:uTlKi.116$n96.31@newsfe06.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> ... or something like it.
>
> please tell me you're joking, right? i'm taking about using css to set
> margins and page orientation...not the user. but, i know the above is a
> joke.

Semi-joking.
I think that trying to make web pages for printers is like trying to make
radio broadcasts for television.
Whenever someone is doing that, it's a clear sign that they don't GET the
internet.

It's totally cool to allow users to download an ALTERNATE print version of
something.
But if you're using PDF as a web page - you're not really making a web page.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:uTlKi.116$n96.31@newsfe06.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> ... or something like it.
>> please tell me you're joking, right? i'm taking about using css to set
>> margins and page orientation...not the user. but, i know the above is a
>> joke.
>
> Semi-joking.
> I think that trying to make web pages for printers is like trying to make
> radio broadcasts for television.
> Whenever someone is doing that, it's a clear sign that they don't GET the
> internet.
>
> It's totally cool to allow users to download an ALTERNATE print version of
> something.
> But if you're using PDF as a web page - you're not really making a web page.
>
>

I wouldn't go that far, but I get your point.

CSS can somewhat get you there. But if you need a specific layout, you
need to create a pdf.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:zurKi.501$sw6.419@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:uTlKi.116$n96.31@newsfe06.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> ... or something like it.
>>
>> please tell me you're joking, right? i'm taking about using css to set
>> margins and page orientation...not the user. but, i know the above is a
>> joke.
>
> Semi-joking.
> I think that trying to make web pages for printers is like trying to make
> radio broadcasts for television.
> Whenever someone is doing that, it's a clear sign that they don't GET the
> internet.
>
> It's totally cool to allow users to download an ALTERNATE print version of
> something.
> But if you're using PDF as a web page - you're not really making a web
> page.

sanders, i don't want to get into it...so i'll keep my usual tone out of it
this time. ;^)

i'm not using pdf as a web page. expecting to have css standards implemented
in a uniform manner by all browsers (a dream, i know) doesn't mean a person
doesn't "get" the internet...any more than someone puzzled at why a desktop
application may or may not work on pc v. another.

further, it is common to generate a report for the web. it is also common
for users to want to print that report. there are instructions in css that
*should* allow for control over printing configuration for that report as
well. since you said you *never* have a problem with that, i very
skeptically asked if you'd post the css you use. perhaps i wasn't doing
something right. i now see my skepticism was founded as your solution is
javascript alerts - which doesn't even come close to my op question!
moreover, you put an exlamation point on my doubts about what you're saying
because of the analogy concluding that 'getting' the internet == dropping
expectations of print configuration.

do you see why people (esp. me) go off on you? you are self-contradictory
and your solutions are so simple (something to strive for) that they don't
even address the problem (which shouldn't be a goal).

anyway, that's as nice as i can put it. i'll leave it at, i'm not happy with
your apparent lack of understanding of the op, nor i'm i pleased that said
misunderstanding promoted your insult(s).

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"rf" wrote in message
news:EXmKi.2236$H22.1834@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:uTlKi.116$n96.31@newsfe06.lga...
>>
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>> news:QAhKi.1186$hI7.351@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>>> "Steve" wrote in message
>>> news:iQaKi.22$n96.21@newsfe06.lga...
>>>
>>>> i *so* don't get it either. maybe i've got a type-o or am
>>>> referencing/misspelling the attribute. would you post your media print
>>>> sample to print landscape with all margins at 0.25"
>>>
>>> body {
>>> onload: javascript:'alert("When printer dialogue is displayed, make
>>> sure to select -landscape-.")';
>>> }
>>>
>>> ... or something like it.
>>
>> please tell me you're joking, right? i'm taking about using css to set
>> margins and page orientation...not the user. but, i know the above is a
>> joke.
>
> No joke.
>
> What you are thinking of is the page media "size" property and its
> "landscape" and "portrait" values.
>
> They were around in CSS 2 but were dropped in CSS 2.1. They are
> re-introduced in CSS 3 but nobody actually supports them. IE is unlikely
> to support them for a long time, as it still doesn't support even CSS 2.1
> properly.
>
> No support === not usable so instructing the user is the next best thing.
>
> Google groups for and settle down for a good read :-)

thanks richard. that was my understanding too. i had to ask it though...i
really don't want to buy a pdf lib or wrap fpdf in a class that does what i
want. anyway, it seems that's what's on the menu.

thanks again.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:uPKdnbj1qbKExGfbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

> CSS can somewhat get you there. But if you need a specific layout, you
> need to create a pdf.

Or Word doc, or Open Document... any desktop publishing app will do, really.
In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that using MS Word is better than PDF
because MS Word uses the industry standard - HTML/CSS - for both web page
and document format.

Beyond that, I'm on a new bare-bones system that came with WindowsXP and
nothing else.
In the past, I've been kinda surprised when I'd click on a link in a google
search, and see Adobe fire up.
Since my system was/is kinda weak - that means load-time.

By just NOT having a PDF plugin, I avoid getting content in an unexpected or
undesirable format.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:wVsKi.2$UN5.1@newsfe05.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

> do you see why people (esp. me) go off on you? you are self-contradictory
> and your solutions are so simple (something to strive for) that they don't
> even address the problem (which shouldn't be a goal).

Actually - other than you and Jerry, I've been enjoying a sweet LACK of
people going off on me in this newsgroup.

Where you go wrong here is in thinking that by *advancing* the discussion,
I'm somehow being argumentative.
That's called "projection".

Shelly thought that by *advancing* the discussion, I was trying to "get the
last word".
I suspect there was a bit of projection going on there, too.

But that's not true - I'm just enjoying putting in the *next* word.
That's how *really* good disucssions progress to a conclusion.
.... as this one did, about 10 posts back.



> anyway, that's as nice as i can put it. i'll leave it at, i'm not happy
> with your apparent lack of understanding of the op, nor i'm i pleased that
> said misunderstanding promoted your insult(s).
>

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:L9tKi.678$ua4.306@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:uPKdnbj1qbKExGfbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>> CSS can somewhat get you there. But if you need a specific layout, you
>> need to create a pdf.
>
> Or Word doc, or Open Document... any desktop publishing app will do,
> really.
> In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that using MS Word is better than
> PDF because MS Word uses the industry standard - HTML/CSS - for both web
> page and document format.

and by 'industry standard', you mean IE interpretation...yes? that is, since
it's the same code base ie uses. 'member, it's part of the os for a reason.

> Beyond that, I'm on a new bare-bones system that came with WindowsXP and
> nothing else.
> In the past, I've been kinda surprised when I'd click on a link in a
> google search, and see Adobe fire up.
> Since my system was/is kinda weak - that means load-time.
>
> By just NOT having a PDF plugin, I avoid getting content in an unexpected
> or undesirable format.

which is all a moot point if the user is expecting to get a pdf when
clicking a link or submitting a form that says, 'download as pdf'. who said
anything about just 'firing up' adobe whenever i feel like it? don't project
bad design on anyone here!

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

> Where you go wrong here is in thinking that by *advancing* the discussion,
> I'm somehow being argumentative.
> That's called "projection".

funny, i just replied to one of your posts in this thread where i told you
not to project. seems not only am i familiar with the word, i know how to
use it and when to recognize it.

the problem is that what you're 'advancing' has NOTHING to do WITH the
discussion. calling you back to task is NOT argumentative. "projection"
would mean i'm taking something and affixing it to something else when the
target is not at fault, essentially. if by 'projection' you mean, 'ignore
the entire question that was asked so that i can wax prophetic about
unrelated issues so as to sound like i actually know something'...then yes,
i'd agree with that definition. the only problem is, the 'i' in that
definition is the pronoun for 'sanders kaufman'.

> Shelly thought that by *advancing* the discussion, I was trying to "get
> the last word".
> I suspect there was a bit of projection going on there, too.

yes, we're ALL out to get you. me, jerry, and now shelly. (shakes head,
relenting to the stupidity of it all)

> But that's not true - I'm just enjoying putting in the *next* word.
> That's how *really* good disucssions progress to a conclusion.
> ... as this one did, about 10 posts back.

don't you just loooovvvveee semantics. 'next'. lol.

anyway, sanders, it would help if your 'next' word was somehow germain to
the conversation at hand. THAT would be how 'really good discussions
progress'. posting 'solutions' that don't address the op concerns or
criticizing the *business contraints* by which one is asked to do
things...that only leads us to the 'conclusion' that you're head is up your
ass.

listen, if you can't stay on task then stay out of the conversation to begin
with. as far as the gang-bang you perceive, notice that jerry, shelly, and i
are very consistently showing you how the sweeping statements you are wont
to blanket the world in is perferated with holes...we're just pointing out
that your blanket is more an afgan.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:VltKi.685$ua4.677@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:wVsKi.2$UN5.1@newsfe05.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

let me also point out your modus apparandi. you clipped out EVERYTHING that
explained very plainly what i said was the problem and how you dipshittedly
NEVER answered it except that 'you don't know the internet if you want to do
that'. your second post boasted of you being able to set page orientation
and margins using css when needing to print, and NEVER having a problem with
it. again, since javascript is NOT css, i ask you to post your *magic* css
here. i'm just going to keep this all a one block paragraph so that you have
to work harder to try and get out of looking a fool by clipping the
certainty proof affords.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in
news:zurKi.501$sw6.419@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:uTlKi.116$n96.31@newsfe06.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> ... or something like it.
>>
>> please tell me you're joking, right? i'm taking about using css to
>> set margins and page orientation...not the user. but, i know the
>> above is a joke.
>
> Semi-joking.
> I think that trying to make web pages for printers is like trying to
> make radio broadcasts for television.
> Whenever someone is doing that, it's a clear sign that they don't GET
> the internet.
>
> It's totally cool to allow users to download an ALTERNATE print
> version of something.
> But if you're using PDF as a web page - you're not really making a web
> page.

Just to bud in here, I'll bring up my web application. We have a system
that parses data from text files and stores them in the database where
they can be manipulated/referenced etc etc. From time to time, clients
need hardcopies of information related to this data in the form of
professionally printable charts. So, I have a script that creates
complicated tables-based charts in XHTML, and then that file goes to
Prince (http://www.princexml.com) where the file is made into a
beautiful PDF according to stylesheets - crop marks, accurate colour,
accurate layout, accurate fonts, accurate font control, accurate printer
margins - that the web simply cannot do.

PHP being used in this instance for something entirely web unrelated...
again, PDFs have their place, and if you want to make professional
looking and printing PDFs for clients that are based on web data, why
not use PHP to make them?

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:VltKi.685$ua4.677@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:wVsKi.2$UN5.1@newsfe05.lga...
> Shelly thought that by *advancing* the discussion, I was trying to "get
> the last word".
> I suspect there was a bit of projection going on there, too.

Uh, no. Apparantly you missed the smiley at the end of that sentence. I
was making a little joke by twisting a familiar expression. Because you were
talking about a letter and so I said "You can have the last word/letter
:-)". There was no debate or agrument. It was only a little joke on the
English language. Relax.

Shelly

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:cfuKi.19$xU4.7@newsfe02.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that using MS Word is better than
>> PDF because MS Word uses the industry standard - HTML/CSS - for both web
>> page and document format.
>
> and by 'industry standard', you mean IE interpretation...yes? that is,
> since it's the same code base ie uses. 'member, it's part of the os for a
> reason.

I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:EyuKi.29$Ue7.28@newsfe12.lga...

>> But that's not true - I'm just enjoying putting in the *next* word.
>> That's how *really* good disucssions progress to a conclusion.
>> ... as this one did, about 10 posts back.
>
> don't you just loooovvvveee semantics. 'next'. lol.

Yes. Yes, I do.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:lNuKi.7$M31.0@newsfe06.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

> let me also point out your modus apparandi. you clipped out EVERYTHING
> that explained very plainly what i said was the problem and how you
> dipshittedly

That's just netiquette.
It's impolite to quote entire posts - since the already exist right there in
the thread.
Better to snip away the portions irrelevant to the response.

I understand that it is very frustrating for you - but I just don't have the
time or will to correct you on *everything*.






> NEVER answered it except that 'you don't know the internet if you want to
> do that'. your second post boasted of you being able to set page
> orientation and margins using css when needing to print, and NEVER having
> a problem with it. again, since javascript is NOT css, i ask you to post
> your *magic* css here. i'm just going to keep this all a one block
> paragraph so that you have to work harder to try and get out of looking a
> fool by clipping the certainty proof affords.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13fkutraba73od4@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> Shelly thought that by *advancing* the discussion, I was trying to "get
>> the last word".
>> I suspect there was a bit of projection going on there, too.
>
> Uh, no. Apparantly you missed the smiley at the end of that sentence. I
> was making a little joke by twisting a familiar expression. Because you
> were talking about a letter and so I said "You can have the last
> word/letter :-)". There was no debate or agrument. It was only a little
> joke on the English language. Relax.

'Scuse me. I was projecting onto you.
If you had, you would have been one of about a zillion chicks in my life who
have told me that I always have to get in the last word.
And that's all I have to say about that! ;)

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:W1NKi.37165$RX.31014@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:cfuKi.19$xU4.7@newsfe02.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that using MS Word is better than
>>> PDF because MS Word uses the industry standard - HTML/CSS - for both web
>>> page and document format.
>>
>> and by 'industry standard', you mean IE interpretation...yes? that is,
>> since it's the same code base ie uses. 'member, it's part of the os for a
>> reason.
>
> I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.

dude! read it again. wait, i'll break it down into sanders-sized bites. ;^)

'ms word uses the industry standard - html/css' (subject)
'industry standard' is *interpreted* by individual browsers (common
knowledge)
word uses same lib as ie, so the same problem exists in reliability of
output - ms word !> pdf (conclusion)
a *true* standard output is needed so reports always look the same no matter
what pc it is viewed or printed from (the original question being asked)

your idea of 'advancing' the conversation has led us back to the question.
nothing wrong with that unless you fail to pick up any useful information on
the journey...which is the case since you have not provided any.

btw, i have the distinct impression that there are many things of which you
are unaware.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:_1NKi.37166$RX.17502@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:EyuKi.29$Ue7.28@newsfe12.lga...
>
>>> But that's not true - I'm just enjoying putting in the *next* word.
>>> That's how *really* good disucssions progress to a conclusion.
>>> ... as this one did, about 10 posts back.
>>
>> don't you just loooovvvveee semantics. 'next'. lol.
>
> Yes. Yes, I do.

that's right...snip and cover.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:02NKi.37167$RX.7934@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:lNuKi.7$M31.0@newsfe06.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>> let me also point out your modus apparandi. you clipped out EVERYTHING
>> that explained very plainly what i said was the problem and how you
>> dipshittedly
>
> That's just netiquette.
> It's impolite to quote entire posts - since the already exist right there
> in the thread.

especially the quotes that show sanders kaufman to be a bit moronic.

> Better to snip away the portions irrelevant to the response.

no, people would benefit from knowing the weight of your responses.

> I understand that it is very frustrating for you - but I just don't have
> the time or will to correct you on *everything*.

lol. and the thread id to which you refer is? i can certainly provide you
with several to which i, shelly, jerry, and others offer correction on your
many misgivings about php. but oh yeah, we're all out to get you.

>> NEVER answered it except that 'you don't know the internet if you want to
>> do that'. your second post boasted of you being able to set page
>> orientation and margins using css when needing to print, and NEVER having
>> a problem with it. again, since javascript is NOT css, i ask you to post
>> your *magic* css here. i'm just going to keep this all a one block
>> paragraph so that you have to work harder to try and get out of looking a
>> fool by clipping the certainty proof affords.

i see you left it in...just can't prove it wrong. where's the css?

roflmao

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:cfuKi.19$xU4.7@newsfe02.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that using MS Word is better than
>>> PDF because MS Word uses the industry standard - HTML/CSS - for both web
>>> page and document format.
>> and by 'industry standard', you mean IE interpretation...yes? that is,
>> since it's the same code base ie uses. 'member, it's part of the os for a
>> reason.
>
> I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.
>
>

It isn't. But what MS calls a browser is a piece of crap (at least
through IE 6 - haven't tried 7). And most of the time their other
products generate crap code which only works on IE.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:42NKi.37168$RX.20065@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13fkutraba73od4@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> Shelly thought that by *advancing* the discussion, I was trying to "get
>>> the last word".
>>> I suspect there was a bit of projection going on there, too.
>>
>> Uh, no. Apparantly you missed the smiley at the end of that sentence. I
>> was making a little joke by twisting a familiar expression. Because you
>> were talking about a letter and so I said "You can have the last
>> word/letter :-)". There was no debate or agrument. It was only a little
>> joke on the English language. Relax.
>
> 'Scuse me. I was projecting onto you.
> If you had, you would have been one of about a zillion chicks in my life
> who have told me that I always have to get in the last word.
> And that's all I have to say about that! ;)

gump...you have a new fav. word? projection?

while i'm sure you aren't calling shelly your 'bitch', your statement would
infer with statistical significance that it is likly you do have to get in
the last word. a zillion? you must be chisled like a greek god because i
doubt it's your intellect that holds their attention. ;^)

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:42NKi.37168$RX.20065@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13fkutraba73od4@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> Shelly thought that by *advancing* the discussion, I was trying to "get
>>> the last word".
>>> I suspect there was a bit of projection going on there, too.
>>
>> Uh, no. Apparantly you missed the smiley at the end of that sentence. I
>> was making a little joke by twisting a familiar expression. Because you
>> were talking about a letter and so I said "You can have the last
>> word/letter :-)". There was no debate or agrument. It was only a little
>> joke on the English language. Relax.
>
> 'Scuse me. I was projecting onto you.
> If you had, you would have been one of about a zillion chicks in my life
> who have told me that I always have to get in the last word.
> And that's all I have to say about that! ;)

My wife and I have been married for over four decades. I can assure you I
have no such interest in you :-).

Shelly
(Sheldon)

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> "Steve" wrote in message
>> news:cfuKi.19$xU4.7@newsfe02.lga...
>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>
>>>> In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that using MS Word is better
>>>> than PDF because MS Word uses the industry standard - HTML/CSS - for
>>>> both web page and document format.
>>> and by 'industry standard', you mean IE interpretation...yes? that
>>> is, since it's the same code base ie uses. 'member, it's part of the
>>> os for a reason.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.
>>
>>
>
> It isn't. But what MS calls a browser is a piece of crap (at least
> through IE 6 - haven't tried 7). And most of the time their other
> products generate crap code which only works on IE.
>
Ubiquitous crap tho, sadly..

[OT] Mental Illness in Web-Based Communities

"Steve" wrote in message
news:L_NKi.16$Za.14@newsfe05.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> 'Scuse me. I was projecting onto you.
>> If you had, you would have been one of about a zillion chicks in my life
>> who have told me that I always have to get in the last word.
>> And that's all I have to say about that! ;)
>
> gump...you have a new fav. word? projection?

If you do a google search on ("Sanders Kaufman" +"Mental Illness") you'll
find that I've been exploring the emotional aspects of structured and
unstructured communities for quite some time.
You just think *I'm* new to it because you're.... projecting.


> while i'm sure you aren't calling shelly your 'bitch', your statement
> would infer with statistical significance that it is likly you do have to
> get in

Bitch? Statistical signficance? WTF?
Dude - step awaaaay from the bong.


> the last word. a zillion? you must be chisled like a greek god because i
> doubt it's your intellect that holds their attention. ;^)

Yeah - that's me, a dumb jock.
No, seriously. Dude -there's a lotta chicks out there.
Angry, psycho, multi-divorced and with daddy issues - but they're there.

The GOOD NEWS is that you don't seem any more or less fucked up than any of
them.
So you gotta shot at a zillion, too - f'thats whatcha want.
(Hey, I think I just made up a totaly new contraction! I'm so ing'smart it
scares me.)



--
"There's a girl,
Right next to you,
And she's just looking,
For something to do." - Love the One You're With

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:K_NKi.13$Za.12@newsfe05.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

> word uses same lib as ie, so the same problem exists in reliability of
> output - ms word !> pdf (conclusion)

Yeah - tha's why I suggested using word to print HTML documents.
Because Word or PDF *binaries* are too proprietary.
But since Word is an easy interface to HTML, and PDF has almost *nothing* to
do with HTML, Word is the obvious choice as a web-based print interface.


> a *true* standard output is needed so reports always look the same no
> matter what pc it is viewed or printed from (the original question being
> asked)

So what you're saying here is that there is no solution.
That leads the problem-solver in me to ask - what program comes the closest
to being a good HTML Print interface.
The answer, of course, is MS Word.


> your idea of 'advancing' the conversation has led us back to the question.

Beats goin' off topic.


> nothing wrong with that unless you fail to pick up any useful information
> on the journey...which is the case since you have not provided any.

Wow - that sentence is so disjointed.
But hey - I'm having fun, so here's a clue for you:
I picked up useful information... and provided some.
I even picked up and disseminated some useless info... and am.


> btw, i have the distinct impression that there are many things of which
> you are unaware.

As both the alpha and the omega - there is nothing of which I am unaware.

--
"I am God" - Buddah.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:K_NKi.14$Za.2@newsfe05.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>>> don't you just loooovvvveee semantics. 'next'. lol.
>>
>> Yes. Yes, I do.
>
> that's right...snip and cover.

I'm truely sorry that I cannot address every single issue you bring up -
real or imagined.
I wish you great success in finding someone who can... and will.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:P9adnZd_bcfuMWbbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.
>
> It isn't. But what MS calls a browser is a piece of crap (at least

I've got about 100 million of my closest friends that say otherwise.
They work in churches, military bases, goverment offices and other whore
houses throughout the world.

Watchoo gots, champ?






> through IE 6 - haven't tried 7). And most of the time their other
> products generate crap code which only works on IE.
>
> --
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstucklex@attglobal.net
> ==================

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13fnb8ps3c5cmb7@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> If you had, you would have been one of about a zillion chicks in my life
>> who have told me that I always have to get in the last word.
>> And that's all I have to say about that! ;)
>
> My wife and I have been married for over four decades. I can assure you I
> have no such interest in you :-).

I knew that you were a dude when you expressed surprise that a teenage girl
would not know *everything* about phone-chatting.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:o1PKi.9167$JD.5456@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> "Shelly" wrote in message
> news:13fnb8ps3c5cmb7@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> If you had, you would have been one of about a zillion chicks in my life
>>> who have told me that I always have to get in the last word.
>>> And that's all I have to say about that! ;)
>>
>> My wife and I have been married for over four decades. I can assure you
>> I have no such interest in you :-).
>
> I knew that you were a dude when you expressed surprise that a teenage
> girl would not know *everything* about phone-chatting.

Not to get the last word in :-), but that is not what I said. I said I
couldn't understand WHY do texting when talking is so much easier.

Shelly

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:n1PKi.9163$JD.1410@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:K_NKi.13$Za.12@newsfe05.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>> word uses same lib as ie, so the same problem exists in reliability of
>> output - ms word !> pdf (conclusion)
>
> Yeah - tha's why I suggested using word to print HTML documents.

not all pc's have word. not all pc's can install word. and since i asked
about pdf generation, your suggestion has probably already been found less
than preferable. further, given that you agree, apparently, that 'the same
problem exists in reliability of output [between word and ie v. other
browsers], WTF would you make such a suggestion. it is illogical.

> Because Word or PDF *binaries* are too proprietary.

too proprietary? what tha!? you wanna real that in a bit with something that
would qualify that?

> But since Word is an easy interface to HTML,

oh yes, i use word to browse the net all the time. again, what tha!?

> and PDF has almost *nothing* to do with HTML,

it has everything to do with PORTABLE DOCUMENT FORMAT!!! i'd like to
generate one using the html my report(s) already generate. i feel
embarrassed for you that i have explained that numerous times and in
different ways, yet, you still don't get it.

> Word is the obvious choice as a web-based print interface.

hardly. the *ideal* would be the BROWSER in which the page is viewed. since
i KNOW that css cannot reliably set margins or orientation - even though you
say you can and that you *never* have issues doing so. (i'm still waiting to
see your 'magic' css...lol)

the only thing that is obvious is that you prefer word. compared to other
more PORTABLE tools out there, it is obvious that you have not weighed the
pro's and con's of the alternatives.

>> a *true* standard output is needed so reports always look the same no
>> matter what pc it is viewed or printed from (the original question being
>> asked)
>
> So what you're saying here is that there is no solution.

what i just said - please do follow along - is that WORD is not THE
solution!

> That leads the problem-solver in me to ask - what program comes the
> closest to being a good HTML Print interface.
> The answer, of course, is MS Word.

lol! that's why your advice should scare most people here. adobe has
versions of PDF readers for just about every os...and on each os, what is
viewed/printed is ALWAYS the same in appearance. being 'too' proprietary,
*nix systems are NOT going to get the same results because MS IS NOT
supplying the conversion OR rendering tools.

>> your idea of 'advancing' the conversation has led us back to the
>> question.
>
> Beats goin' off topic.

oh illogical one, because i simply point out one of your many flaws here, it
does not mean that in fact, you don't have many flaws - inclusive.

how about...

me: 'hey, css isn't cutting it for what i need. i need to use pdf. anyone
suggest pre-builts that will convert my html to pdf?'

you: 'javascript:alert('manually do what the op said was not convenient for
you to do...i command it here')'.

so, we have a solution that doesn't apply, is ot of the op...and now you're
excusing yourself from your idiocity? or, is you recall weaker than even i
suspected?

>> nothing wrong with that unless you fail to pick up any useful information
>> on the journey...which is the case since you have not provided any.
>
> Wow - that sentence is so disjointed.

qualify.

> But hey - I'm having fun, so here's a clue for you:
> I picked up useful information... and provided some.

glad YOU did...however, what you provided ME (the op) was not useful - the
keyword i guess i should have YELLED or otherwise made stand out, since you
have no comprehension of what you read.

you dislexic or just add in the middle of what you're reading?

> I even picked up and disseminated some useless info... and am.

what?! clue: disjointed is perhaps one thing, LITERATE is completely
another. try that sentence again please...in plain english.

>> btw, i have the distinct impression that there are many things of which
>> you are unaware.
>
> As both the alpha and the omega - there is nothing of which I am unaware.

are you mentally disturbed?

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

Butting in as an aside..

Steve, whats your opinion of an RTF format?

I need to generate invoices and suchlike from a PHP/apache combo, and
PDF's look a shade overkill.

I MAY simply print to a queue on the server in PCL or somesuch, but that
won't work for remote clients.

I wpld sem o have three chocices fir siomething that gos in a web screen
or an email

HTML, with all the bollocks that entails,.
PDF and all the bollocks THAT entails.
Plain Text, and fudge the graphics
RTF?

what else is possible?

Not looking for obscure comapatibility issues: Just a robust 95%
solution that almost everyone will be able to use.


>

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:n1PKi.9164$JD.442@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:P9adnZd_bcfuMWbbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>> I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.
>>
>> It isn't. But what MS calls a browser is a piece of crap (at least
>
> I've got about 100 million of my closest friends that say otherwise.
> They work in churches, military bases, goverment offices and other whore
> houses throughout the world.
>
> Watchoo gots, champ?

100 million...is that like the 'zillion' girfriends?

just because people are pragmatic with their money setting up windows
desktops that are very touchy-feely, and have a propensity toward
standardization of software, it does NOT mean that those under the
*direction* of their employ LIKE or in anyway AFFIRM the quality of the
browser to which you say those numbers attest. your being prone to
exaggeration coupled with your illogical conclusions.

fallacy of conclusion.

"organic things are good for you, so uranium must be good for you"

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:n1PKi.9165$JD.4568@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:K_NKi.14$Za.2@newsfe05.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>>> don't you just loooovvvveee semantics. 'next'. lol.
>>>
>>> Yes. Yes, I do.
>>
>> that's right...snip and cover.
>
> I'm truely sorry that I cannot address every single issue you bring up -
> real or imagined.
> I wish you great success in finding someone who can... and will.

i don't care if you respond to *anything*...in fact, i prefer you don't
given your track record on usefullness. i DO care that when you DO respond,
that you DON'T conveniently clip the things that show not only that you're
wrong, but stupid.

Re: [OT] Mental Illness in Web-Based Communities

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:n1PKi.9166$JD.3631@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:L_NKi.16$Za.14@newsfe05.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> 'Scuse me. I was projecting onto you.
>>> If you had, you would have been one of about a zillion chicks in my life
>>> who have told me that I always have to get in the last word.
>>> And that's all I have to say about that! ;)
>>
>> gump...you have a new fav. word? projection?
>
> If you do a google search on ("Sanders Kaufman" +"Mental Illness") you'll
> find that I've been exploring the emotional aspects of structured and
> unstructured communities for quite some time.
> You just think *I'm* new to it because you're.... projecting.

false conclusion.

i never made a statement that said you were new to the term. i asked if you
knew what it meant. then, i asked if it was your new favorite word. however,
since you think i'm projecting, by definition, you are saying i'm new to the
term...a conclusion for which no evidence is provided - quite the opposite
of the evidence in hand when i said you were projecting.

false conclusion...simple as that.

wait. why am i wasting my time on you?

>> while i'm sure you aren't calling shelly your 'bitch', your statement
>> would infer with statistical significance that it is likly you do have to
>> get in
>
> Bitch? Statistical signficance? WTF?
> Dude - step awaaaay from the bong.

well, apparently shelly and i both can infer well. notice his response was
that he was happily married. seems you don't know how to NOT insult someone.
it's called 'implication'...may that be your new word of the day - replacing
'projection'.

>> the last word. a zillion? you must be chisled like a greek god because i
>> doubt it's your intellect that holds their attention. ;^)
>
> Yeah - that's me, a dumb jock.

i knew it. not that the guess was made from the subtlest of clues however.

> No, seriously. Dude -there's a lotta chicks out there.
> Angry, psycho, multi-divorced and with daddy issues - but they're there.

not the point. to you, 'a lotta' == 'zillion' ... how does your math
calculate the deficite of human souls known to exist when subtracted from a
'zillion'? 1Z - 4.5B. wow. so your 7-incher is 7 * the result of the
difference SMALLER...lol.

> The GOOD NEWS is that you don't seem any more or less fucked up than any
> of them.
> So you gotta shot at a zillion, too - f'thats whatcha want.
> (Hey, I think I just made up a totaly new contraction! I'm so ing'smart
> it scares me.)

you're ing-something...smart ain't it.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news:1190907660.28264.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> Butting in as an aside..

phil, thank gawd! the aside would bring me back off this fucking tanget of
lunacy sanders got me going down.

;^)

> Steve, whats your opinion of an RTF format?

i haven't really thought about it as much as i should have...and i've not
done anything with it in php yet.

> I need to generate invoices and suchlike from a PHP/apache combo, and
> PDF's look a shade overkill.
>
> I MAY simply print to a queue on the server in PCL or somesuch, but that
> won't work for remote clients.

i had thought of exec'ing to a printer with a pdf print driver on the
server, then picking it up for the brower. lots of steps though,
comparatively.

> I wpld sem o have three chocices fir siomething that gos in a web screen
> or an email
>
> HTML, with all the bollocks that entails,.
> PDF and all the bollocks THAT entails.
> Plain Text, and fudge the graphics
> RTF?
>
> what else is possible?
>
> Not looking for obscure comapatibility issues: Just a robust 95% solution
> that almost everyone will be able to use.

i'm open to just about anything that will be easy for the user and is very
close to the original report viewed in their browser.

have you experience or references working with php and rtf?

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Butting in as an aside..
>
> Steve, whats your opinion of an RTF format?
>
> I need to generate invoices and suchlike from a PHP/apache combo, and
> PDF's look a shade overkill.
>
> I MAY simply print to a queue on the server in PCL or somesuch, but that
> won't work for remote clients.
>
> I wpld sem o have three chocices fir siomething that gos in a web screen
> or an email
>
> HTML, with all the bollocks that entails,.
> PDF and all the bollocks THAT entails.
> Plain Text, and fudge the graphics
> RTF?
>
> what else is possible?
>
> Not looking for obscure comapatibility issues: Just a robust 95%
> solution that almost everyone will be able to use.
>
>
>>

The "problem" with rtf's is that they are still open to interpretation.
For instance, whichever program is interpreting the file may break a
line where *it* seems fit, not where you think it should be broken.

Now this may be an advantage - i.e. if they're printing War and Peace,
it gives them the ability to break lines at convenient places. But if
you're doing an invoice, it may not be so good.

With PDF's you get *exactly* what you put in the file. Which is good
for invoices, but not War and Peace.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>> "Steve" wrote in message
>>> news:cfuKi.19$xU4.7@newsfe02.lga...
>>>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that using MS Word is better
>>>>> than PDF because MS Word uses the industry standard - HTML/CSS -
>>>>> for both web page and document format.
>>>> and by 'industry standard', you mean IE interpretation...yes? that
>>>> is, since it's the same code base ie uses. 'member, it's part of the
>>>> os for a reason.
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It isn't. But what MS calls a browser is a piece of crap (at least
>> through IE 6 - haven't tried 7). And most of the time their other
>> products generate crap code which only works on IE.
>>
> Ubiquitous crap tho, sadly..

Yep.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

Steve wrote:
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
> news:n1PKi.9164$JD.442@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>> news:P9adnZd_bcfuMWbbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>> I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.
>>> It isn't. But what MS calls a browser is a piece of crap (at least
>> I've got about 100 million of my closest friends that say otherwise.
>> They work in churches, military bases, goverment offices and other whore
>> houses throughout the world.
>>
>> Watchoo gots, champ?
>
> 100 million...is that like the 'zillion' girfriends?
>
> just because people are pragmatic with their money setting up windows
> desktops that are very touchy-feely, and have a propensity toward
> standardization of software, it does NOT mean that those under the
> *direction* of their employ LIKE or in anyway AFFIRM the quality of the
> browser to which you say those numbers attest. your being prone to
> exaggeration coupled with your illogical conclusions.
>
> fallacy of conclusion.
>
> "organic things are good for you, so uranium must be good for you"
>
>

Damn - you mean uranium *isn't* good for you? Wait until I tell my wife
(she's in that industry :-) ).

Maybe that's why I don't sleep well. The glow keeps me awake :-)


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: [OT] Mental Illness in Web-Based Communities

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:L_NKi.16$Za.14@newsfe05.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> 'Scuse me. I was projecting onto you.
>>> If you had, you would have been one of about a zillion chicks in my life
>>> who have told me that I always have to get in the last word.
>>> And that's all I have to say about that! ;)
>> gump...you have a new fav. word? projection?
>
> If you do a google search on ("Sanders Kaufman" +"Mental Illness") you'll
> find that I've been exploring the emotional aspects of structured and
> unstructured communities for quite some time.
> You just think *I'm* new to it because you're.... projecting.
>

A very interesting combination... :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[OT-Browser Choice] Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:KiQKi.9$HU7.3@newsfe12.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> I've got about 100 million of my closest friends that say otherwise.
>> They work in churches, military bases, goverment offices and other whore
>> houses throughout the world.
>>
>> Watchoo gots, champ?
>
> 100 million...is that like the 'zillion' girfriends?
>
> just because people are pragmatic with their money setting up windows
> desktops that are very touchy-feely, and have a propensity toward
> standardization of software, it does NOT mean that those under the
> *direction* of their employ LIKE or in anyway AFFIRM the quality of the
> browser to which you say those numbers attest.

The affirmation comes at home - where the vast majority of users also choose
to use IE.








>
> fallacy of conclusion.
>
> "organic things are good for you, so uranium must be good for you"
>

[OT] Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:5PGdnf4OgIgU6mHbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:

>> "organic things are good for you, so uranium must be good for you"
>
> Damn - you mean uranium *isn't* good for you? Wait until I tell my wife
> (she's in that industry :-) ).
>
> Maybe that's why I don't sleep well. The glow keeps me awake :-)

Wow - you guys BOTH think that Uranium is "organic"?
Wow.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news:1190907660.28264.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
> Butting in as an aside..

> HTML, with all the bollocks that entails,.
> PDF and all the bollocks THAT entails.
> Plain Text, and fudge the graphics
> RTF?
>
> what else is possible?

Although I've been evangelizing Word, OpenDocument format is probably best
for folks with an aversion to Microsoft.




>
> Not looking for obscure comapatibility issues: Just a robust 95% solution
> that almost everyone will be able to use.
>
>
>>

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:rKQKi.15$HU7.1@newsfe12.lga...
> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

>> Steve, whats your opinion of an RTF format?
>
> i haven't really thought about it as much as i should have...and i've not
> done anything with it in php yet.

Early in the W3C's existance, they contemplated RTF heavily.
But since it's a binary, rather than text, file - it's too problematic.
Viri can attach easily, a bad bit can ruin the whole document, and it's not
editable with a text editor.

Using a binary as a web document is bad business.

[OT] Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:2lQKi.10$HU7.6@newsfe12.lga...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> I'm truely sorry that I cannot address every single issue you bring up -
>> real or imagined.
>> I wish you great success in finding someone who can... and will.
>
> i don't care if you respond to *anything*...in fact, i prefer you don't

If you would like me to stop conversing with me... it's in your power to do
so.





> given your track record on usefullness. i DO care that when you DO
> respond, that you DON'T conveniently clip the things that show not only
> that you're wrong, but stupid.
>

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Shelly" wrote in message
news:13fnilnqof0mva4@corp.supernews.com...
> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message

>> I knew that you were a dude when you expressed surprise that a teenage
>> girl would not know *everything* about phone-chatting.
>
> Not to get the last word in :-), but that is not what I said. I said I
> couldn't understand WHY do texting when talking is so much easier.

Oh - that's an easy one. Because it's kewl.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
> news:1190907660.28264.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>> Butting in as an aside..
>
>> HTML, with all the bollocks that entails,.
>> PDF and all the bollocks THAT entails.
>> Plain Text, and fudge the graphics
>> RTF?
>>
>> what else is possible?
>
> Although I've been evangelizing Word, OpenDocument format is probably best
> for folks with an aversion to Microsoft.
>
>
>
>
>> Not looking for obscure comapatibility issues: Just a robust 95% solution
>> that almost everyone will be able to use.
>>
>>
>
>

Not if you want to control the exact layout of the document.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: [OT-Browser Choice] Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:KiQKi.9$HU7.3@newsfe12.lga...
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>
>>> I've got about 100 million of my closest friends that say otherwise.
>>> They work in churches, military bases, goverment offices and other whore
>>> houses throughout the world.
>>>
>>> Watchoo gots, champ?
>> 100 million...is that like the 'zillion' girfriends?
>>
>> just because people are pragmatic with their money setting up windows
>> desktops that are very touchy-feely, and have a propensity toward
>> standardization of software, it does NOT mean that those under the
>> *direction* of their employ LIKE or in anyway AFFIRM the quality of the
>> browser to which you say those numbers attest.
>
> The affirmation comes at home - where the vast majority of users also choose
> to use IE.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> fallacy of conclusion.
>>
>> "organic things are good for you, so uranium must be good for you"
>>
>
>

And 100 million users can't be wrong? ROFLMAO!

I've heard some stupid things, Sanders, but in this case you REALLY have
no clue.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Re: [OT-Browser Choice] Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:_8OdnaiJtbOBe2HbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:

>> The affirmation comes at home - where the vast majority of users also
>> choose to use IE.
>
> And 100 million users can't be wrong? ROFLMAO!

When stating their *own* preference - no, they can't be.
I realize that you think you know what people want.
And that what you think they want is not what they actually choose to do.
And that you think you know better than they what they want.
But that's just crazy.

I've found that it's always better to determine what folks want by the
choices they make.

> I've heard some stupid things, Sanders, but in this case you REALLY have
> no clue.

I have 100Million clues.
Whatchoo got, champ - besides faith?

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:_8OdnamJtbNWeGHbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message

>> Although I've been evangelizing Word, OpenDocument format is probably
>> best for folks with an aversion to Microsoft.
>>
>>> Not looking for obscure comapatibility issues: Just a robust 95%
>>> solution that almost everyone will be able to use.
>
> Not if you want to control the exact layout of the document.

95% is what he asked for.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
news:5PGdnf4OgIgU6mHbnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
>> news:n1PKi.9164$JD.442@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
>>> news:P9adnZd_bcfuMWbbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>>> I wasn't aware that HTML/CSS was a Microsoft-only technology.
>>>> It isn't. But what MS calls a browser is a piece of crap (at least
>>> I've got about 100 million of my closest friends that say otherwise.
>>> They work in churches, military bases, goverment offices and other whore
>>> houses throughout the world.
>>>
>>> Watchoo gots, champ?
>>
>> 100 million...is that like the 'zillion' girfriends?
>>
>> just because people are pragmatic with their money setting up windows
>> desktops that are very touchy-feely, and have a propensity toward
>> standardization of software, it does NOT mean that those under the
>> *direction* of their employ LIKE or in anyway AFFIRM the quality of the
>> browser to which you say those numbers attest. your being prone to
>> exaggeration coupled with your illogical conclusions.
>>
>> fallacy of conclusion.
>>
>> "organic things are good for you, so uranium must be good for you"
>
> Damn - you mean uranium *isn't* good for you? Wait until I tell my wife
> (she's in that industry :-) ).
>
> Maybe that's why I don't sleep well. The glow keeps me awake :-)

lol

:)

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:eTaLi.772$ih1.280@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:_8OdnamJtbNWeGHbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>> "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
>
>>> Although I've been evangelizing Word, OpenDocument format is probably
>>> best for folks with an aversion to Microsoft.
>>>
>>>> Not looking for obscure comapatibility issues: Just a robust 95%
>>>> solution that almost everyone will be able to use.
>>
>> Not if you want to control the exact layout of the document.
>
> 95% is what he asked for.

he who? me?

95% is what YOU said...even then, you've overstated word's or opendocument's
capabilities can supply to my op!

pdf == 100%

now, fucktard, when are you EVER going to show me your magical, mystical css
that NEVER gives you fits when using it to set orientation and margins. i
keep asking for it...let's see it. i suppose you can't supply that either.

Re: [OT-Browser Choice] Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:eTaLi.771$ih1.193@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote in message
> news:_8OdnaiJtbOBe2HbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>
>>> The affirmation comes at home - where the vast majority of users also
>>> choose to use IE.
>>
>> And 100 million users can't be wrong? ROFLMAO!
>
> When stating their *own* preference - no, they can't be.
> I realize that you think you know what people want.
> And that what you think they want is not what they actually choose to do.
> And that you think you know better than they what they want.
> But that's just crazy.
>
> I've found that it's always better to determine what folks want by the
> choices they make.
>
>> I've heard some stupid things, Sanders, but in this case you REALLY have
>> no clue.
>
> I have 100Million clues.
> Whatchoo got, champ - besides faith?

hey 'chump'...let's have the cite for the 1M. as we know, you are HIGHLY
prone to exaggeration. i'd like to see the numbers AND the survey(s). so,
unless you have a cite, you've got even less than faith...you've got a lie.

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Steve" wrote in message
news:sZbLi.34$I32.25@newsfe05.lga...

> now, fucktard, when are you EVER going to show me your magical, mystical
> css that NEVER gives you fits when using it to set orientation and
> margins. i keep asking for it...let's see it. i suppose you can't supply
> that either.

Wow, you really melted down there.
That's over the top.

-PLONK-

Re: reinventing the pdf wheel

"Sanders Kaufman" wrote in message
news:H8hLi.3263$6p6.3070@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> "Steve" wrote in message
> news:sZbLi.34$I32.25@newsfe05.lga...
>
>> now, fucktard, when are you EVER going to show me your magical, mystical
>> css that NEVER gives you fits when using it to set orientation and
>> margins. i keep asking for it...let's see it. i suppose you can't supply
>> that either.
>
> Wow, you really melted down there.
> That's over the top.

figures. can't answer the question, can't supply what you claim. easiest way
to save face? 'plonk'.

lol.