JD on EP

to John:

Right now, I can send an email to some
people I know, and attach a PDF to that
email. Some of the recipients may have
a Windows machine, others macs. I don't
need to worry about that. They will
be able to read that PDF offline.
Thank you, Adobe for that.

What I am trying to understand is
the new world of AIR. Will it make
it possible for me to attach a
Flash game to an email so that
the recipients can play that
Flash game on their machines
(Windows or Macs) offline?

[jd sez: I think so, because most emailers accept attachments. Some of them are configured to filter out certain filetypes. You'd still need to test for AIR hosting shell though. I'm not sure yet how people will want to handle that desire.]

I realize the term "Flash game"
can cover a lot of territory--
including video. But here I
am referring to games about
as complicated as the early arcade
games: Pacman, Marble Madness,
say.

Any enlightenment would be
much appreciated.

Roger Purves

to John:

I sometimes write something
in InDesign, save it as a PDF,
email the PDF as an attachment.
When I create the document in
InDesign, I don't have to think
about testing for a "PDF hosting
shell" on the recipient's machine.

My question was likely not clear.

Here is how I was I was hoping you
would respond:

"Of course, provided the recipient
has previously downloaded blank
from the Adobe site"

where instead of the blank you
named a counterpart of (Adobe)
Reader that would allow the
recipient of the attached game
to play the game offline (Just
as Reader allows the recipient
of the email with the attached
PDF to open and read that PDF
offline.)

Incidentally, if "game" is too
broad a category, suppose the
email attachment is the tiny
"Hello world" application
you were kind enough to cite:

http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2006/08/improved_hello.cfm

John, my questions are likely not
framed properly, so if you do
not respond, I understand.

Thank you for the first comment.
I never realized that some
emailers might filter out
certain attachments.

Roger Purves

Of course, the difference between OOXML and PDF is that Microsoft does not reserve the right to sue those that implement OOXML while Adobe does reserve the right to sue those that choose to implement PDF. PDF is an open standard in name only if Adobe can pick and choose who is allowed to implement it. (I of course refer to Adobe's successfully threatening to sue Microsoft if they had implemented the "open" PDF standard in Office 2007.)

[jd sez: No, "Affy". More here.]

LOL
You call that a refutation of the fact that you threatened to sue Microsoft if they implemented the "open" PDF standard? All you're doing is confirming that fact.

[jd sez: Anonymous trolls tend to be slow. There was no suing, except in the weird proclamations of Microsoft's chief lawyer. We will fight to protect the PDF format from degradation. I'll leave the rest of your hostile ramblings here, but will trim any future ones.]

PDF may be an ISO standard, but it is not an open one. If it were open, anyone would be able to implement it. That's the definition of an "open" standard.

You're post cited an Adobe PR statement claiming that Office 2k7 produced substandard PDF. There is zero proof of that. That's just a straight out lie.

And that statement also says Microsoft was officially declared "monopolist" (which has nothing to do with whether they can implement "open" standards), but that was another lie. *Windows* was declared to enjoy monopoly status on desktop OSes running on intel-compatible CPUs. But we aren't talking about Windows, we are talking about Office 2k7, which has never been officially declared a monopoly product (no version of Office has been officially declared such).

If you wanted to be truthful, you would admit that Adobe was scared that Microsoft including PDF export functionality in Office 2k7 would undercut Adobe's defacto monopoly on Office to PDF export products. You guys even offered to allow Microsoft to ship PDF export functionality in Office 2k7 if Microsoft agreed to up the price of Office 2k7 so as not to undercut your own Office to PDF export products. That is, you proposed that Adobe and Microsoft collude in price fixing wrt Office-to-PDF export products.

When Adobe submitted PDF as an ISO standard, they issued press statements saying that they weren't worried that this action would undermine their PDF creation tools because A) it was worth cementing PDF as a document standard and B) Adobe would have no problem competing with other PDF creation toos on features, ease of use, etc. But, for all your big talk on competing, you were too cowardly to compete with Office 2k7 on PDF creation features, so you went whining to the EU instead. (Why the EU? Both you and Microsoft are US companies, so why not go to the US courts? Oh, that's right, it's because unlike the EC that is predisposed to rule against Micrsoft on any issue, the US courts would have laughed in your faces.)

Microsoft has never sued anyone for implementing any of its ECMA or ISO submitted standards. You have threatened to do so, and continue to reserve the right to sue anyone that implements PDF for any reason you see fit. So remove the halo from your head and the wings from your back; you are not the angels that you pretend to be.