[Vax]

Yes, when? Every other OS has it. Linux, Windows, Solaris, whatever...
How long do we have to wait?

Greetings...
Vax

[Bi@tch]

You don't. Because it doesn't exist.

[Mr. Blur]

Originally posted by Bi@tch:
You don't. Because it doesn't exist.

bzzzzt....wrong. have a look at PDF Browser Plugin ...it's still an early beta, but does show promise.

[AKcrab]

You mean this?

[jwblase]

Wrong. I'm using it right now. Download the freeware plug-in and install it. It works for all OS X browsers, and even though it's not full-featured, it does wonders for the inline PDF viewing.

JB

[snerdini]

Seems like it should be relatively easy, since everything drawn in Quartz is in PDF format...

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by snerdini:
Seems like it should be relatively easy, since everything drawn in Quartz is in PDF format...

Yeah...shouldn't this be easy?

Why do we have to rely on a stinkin' plugin?

Here's to hoping that OmniWeb 5.0 will be able to display .pdf files natively with its engine.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Why do we have to rely on a stinkin' plugin?

Because a browser is for displaying HTML and graphics, and doesn't need to be bloated any further by having PDF built right into it. That's the point of plug-ins: to integrate stuff into the browser at the user's option. Smaller downloads and less bloat all around, because the browser developer doesn't have to be concerned with file formats, and the plug-in developer doesn't have to be concerned about the app around the display code. Better for everyone, in the end.

To be honest, I'd prefer it if even image format support were made into a set of plug-ins. Slim the browser down even further. Did you know that most browsers reinvent the wheel completely with their image display code? For the Mac, for example, there is perfectly good code in QuickTime for displaying GIF, JPEG, PNG, and many other image formats, and they do it even better than most browsers because QuickTime's code tends to have such niceties as ColorSync support built in. But the only browser to leverage this code is iCab. All the other browsers out there bloat themselves by using their own code to do exactly the same thing. I'm not sure, but I think that even the current version of OmniWeb does this.

[manfreds]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:

Why do we have to rely on a stinkin' plugin?

What's wrong with my "stinkin' plugin"?

[boots]

Originally posted by manfreds:
What's wrong with my "stinkin' plugin"?

Nothing wrong with it. Thanks! I am much happier reading on-line journals now.

The only thing I have to complain about (and this is really minor) is that scrolling is very slow. Other than that, no problems. I use it every morning.

Thank you very much.

PS:

To those interested in tryin the plug-in: there are a couple of version out there. Make sure you get the latest or you will not be able to print.

[mitchell_pgh]

Perhaps it's just me, but I LOVE how when I click on a PDF it opens in Preview.

I think the PDF in your browser is a throwback to when Adobe thought that PDF would take over the web...

Don't get me wrong, PDFs are great, but I think they should stay as their own things...

[manfreds]

Originally posted by boots:
The only thing I have to complain about (and this is really minor) is that scrolling is very slow.

I believe I have the fastest scrolling. Faster than Acrobat Reader in my testing, and probably faster than Preview even, but that is cheating by scrolling about 1/4th of a page instead of one line.

Mitchell, try the plugin. You might like it that not every tiny little one page PDF opens in an external viewer and clutters your desktop. Of course you can still quickly save those you'd like to keep and/or view in Acrobat Reader, so there's practically no downside.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Because a browser is for displaying HTML and graphics, and doesn't need to be bloated any further by having PDF built right into it. That's the point of plug-ins: to integrate stuff into the browser at the user's option. Smaller downloads and less bloat all around, because the browser developer doesn't have to be concerned with file formats, and the plug-in developer doesn't have to be concerned about the app around the display code. Better for everyone, in the end.

To be honest, I'd prefer it if even image format support were made into a set of plug-ins. Slim the browser down even further. Did you know that most browsers reinvent the wheel completely with their image display code? For the Mac, for example, there is perfectly good code in QuickTime for displaying GIF, JPEG, PNG, and many other image formats, and they do it even better than most browsers because QuickTime's code tends to have such niceties as ColorSync support built in. But the only browser to leverage this code is iCab. All the other browsers out there bloat themselves by using their own code to do exactly the same thing. I'm not sure, but I think that even the current version of OmniWeb does this.

... And the best possible Apple browser based on QuickTime would probably be the (i)Finder itself! I'll try to explain better, also based on this thread...

... In, for example, Internet Explorer (or any other Netscape plug-in capable browser), in the Classic Mac OS you were able (similarly to Windows) to view PDF documents embedded into the web browser by means of the Acrobat PDFViewer plug-in: simply great (and almost possible in OS X with the new freeware plug-in mentioned above)! Essentially, you got the whole Acrobat (Reader) interface embedded into the browser interface.

Now... What if we shift all this to the Finder - the most loved and hated of all OS X apps, probably...? Just imagine a plug-in based Finder, in which you can (pre)view all kinds of documents for which there is a standalone app available that supports these new plug-ins: for example, you could view HTML documents with a (maybe Gecko-based) "HTMLViewer" plug-in from Mozilla, etc.; you could view PDF, GIF, JPEG, PSD, etc. documents with a "PreviewViewer" (!) plug-in; you could listen to music with an "iTunesViewer" (or "iTunesListener") plug-in; and so on... All this in a pane/frame (see above) with toolbars, etc. embedded into the current Finder window: GNOME 2's Nautilus file manager, for example, already does this quite well.

Such a generalised (and basic!) plug-in "architecture" - beginning from the Finder! - would make document browsing and manipulation far easier and intuitive for beginners, while at the same time leaving power users completely free to use the more powerful standalone apps from which the Finder plug-ins are derived - in a manner completely similar to "PDF in browser" vs. "PDF in Acrobat".

This is something that could very effectively complement and enhance Services in a powerful way, IMHO...

[JLL]

Originally posted by Sven G:


This is something that could very effectively complement and enhance Services in a powerful way, IMHO...

Not this again

The Finder is NOT a document viewer - it's for finding and managing files.

[wataru]

I personally don't care to view PDFs in my browser. I have bad memories of crashes in OS 9 when I tried to do that...

Plus it always opened Acrobat Reader, so what the hell is the point of viewing it in the browser anyway? If you've got to open Acrobat, then you might as well view the file there.

Plus other people in my household never remembered to quit Acrobat when they finished, so it always sat around eating RAM until I noticed and killed it.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by JLL:


Not this again

The Finder is NOT a document viewer - it's for finding and managing files.

Care to elaborate, please? Make some comparisons with other platforms, before rolleyeing! The Mac Finder indeed appears as rather "primitive" if you only cared to make that comparison...

[JLL]

Originally posted by Sven G:


Care to elaborate, please? Make some comparisons with other platforms, before rolleyeing! The Mac Finder indeed appears as rather "primitive" if you only cared to make that comparison...

Comparisons with other platforms?

Just because Windows, Nautilus, Konqueror and others have integrated web browsing in their file manager doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

And I certainly don't think that it would be easier for a beginner.

[clarkgoble]

If you read a lot of technical documents then PDF in the browser is a godsend. Trust me. Sometimes the vast majority of my Google searches are PDF files. If I want them to open up in a separate program such as Acrobat, I can usually do that with right clicking.

What is odd is that PDF display is part of OSX. I don't know if there are good API calls for displaying them, but it is fairly easy to do. So I hope that this becomes standard with Omniweb and Chimera.

This to me is a different issue from making the Finder a document viewer/editor. It is part and parcel of how the web works. The fact of the matter is that in many disciplines HTML doesn't cut it - even with CSS. PDFs are the way to go.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by JLL:


Comparisons with other platforms?

Just because Windows and Konqueror have integrated web browsing in their file manager doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Why?

[example] "You see, I'm a newbie, I don't even know what an "application" is: why must I "open" all these "applications" to get my job done?!?

Why can't I view and manipulate these things first of all from the screen which is first presented to me when my computer has finished starting up?" [/example]

It's not so banal, you see...

OS X should at least try to address these issues, which the Classic OS didn't...

[cpac]

Originally posted by Sven G:
Essentially, you got the whole Acrobat (Reader) interface embedded into the browser interface.

Bleh! Why would I want this? Why attempt to have a plug-in mix interfaces (web + pdf) rather than just opening a .pdf in a .pdf viewer? It isn't any faster (in my experience on windows).

(I *have* brought up the different subject of how OS X needs a better pdf viewer that Acrobat or Preview - but that's in another thread).

Just imagine a plug-in based Finder, in which you can (pre)view all kinds of documents for which there is a standalone app available that supports these new plug-ins:

Why in the world would I want to do this? Either it means that the Finder literally is every application, or it means that I can only do very crippled things in this "plug-in" mode.
Why not just leave those stand alone applications that I use frequently when browsing files, open, so that a mere double click launches the application?

In my experience on Windows it takes just as long for the .pdf plugin to launch as it does for Acrobat itself to launch - why not just have all the functionality of the real Acrobat?

Such a generalised (and basic!) plug-in "architecture" - beginning from the Finder! - would make document browsing and manipulation far easier and intuitive for beginners,

Why? Because the "double click to open" is such a foreign and tough concept to get?

while at the same time leaving power users completely free to use the more powerful standalone apps from which the Finder plug-ins are derived - in a manner completely similar to "PDF in browser" vs. "PDF in Acrobat".

Or it could screw over power and regular users alike by hijacking developer time away from innovations and forcing it into needless mini-versions of applications.

[cpac]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
If you read a lot of technical documents then PDF in the browser is a godsend. Trust me. Sometimes the vast majority of my Google searches are PDF files. If I want them to open up in a separate program such as Acrobat, I can usually do that with right clicking.

But why is it different to have them open inside the browser? Is it just that having a cluttered desktop is a pain, or that you like having less screen real-estate for pdf viewing or what?

[cpac]

Originally posted by Sven G:

"You see, I'm anewbie, I don't even know what an "application" is: why must I "open" all these "applications" to get my job done?!?

Why can't I view and manipulate these things first of all from the screen which is first presented to me when my computer has finished starting up?"

You can - just double click. No need to know what an application is. You have to double click to open a folder - why should the metaphor be different for files?

It's not so banal, you see...

Banal: commonplace, trivial, hackneyed

Exactly. This is not a common problem, but is rather a weird one you've created. No need to fix it.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Because a browser is for displaying HTML and graphics, and doesn't need to be bloated any further by having PDF built right into it. That's the point of plug-ins: to integrate stuff into the browser at the user's option. Smaller downloads and less bloat all around, because the browser developer doesn't have to be concerned with file formats, and the plug-in developer doesn't have to be concerned about the app around the display code. Better for everyone, in the end.

My bad...I was thinking about support for PDF graphics...like .jpg and .gif and .png...as apposed to PDF file.

Like mitchell said...why have the file embedded. Preview is there for PDF.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by cpac:

[...] Or it could screw over power and regular users alike by hijacking developer time away from innovations and forcing it into needless mini-versions of applications.

Bleh! It's from the user's perspective - not the developers'!

... So Gnome and KDE developers should be idiots wasting their time because they care to make things more usable and integrated? Aqua isn't everything...

[Sven G]

Originally posted by cpac:


You can - just double click. No need to know what an application is. You have to double click to open a folder - why should the metaphor be different for files?



Banal: commonplace, trivial, hackneyed

Exactly. This is not a common problem, but is rather a weird one you've created. No need to fix it.

Apple OpenDoc = B$, according to that...?!?

My ideas are only some "proofs of concept", based on the IMO Good Things� I see on other platforms: no need to be so nitpicking!

[cpac]

Originally posted by Sven G:


Bleh! It's from the user's perspective - not the developers'!

And as a user, I'd rather have new features, bug squashes, optimizations, and the like than a finder (or browser, for that matter) plug-in.

[clarkgoble]

The reason you want an integrated PDF viewer in your document is the same reason you don't want a new window to open every time you click on a link. Try this. Instead of clicking on links normally try browsing where you open a new window each time. See how long before you get frustrated.

I have the feeling that all those saying "just open it in an other application" don't open many PDFs. Why should my PDF displays rob me of the ability to quickly use the back and forward buttons in my browser? Why should I have an other window pop up when using Google?

No offense, but this is just plain silly and anyone seriously espousing it clearly doesn't browse a lot of PDFs.

[cpac]

Originally posted by Sven G:


Apple OpenDoc = B$, according to that...?!?

My ideas are only some "proofs of concept", based on the IMO Good Things� I see on other platforms: no need to be so nitpicking!

OpenDoc = dead.

Services, on the other hand are great. They avoid needless copying/pasting between applications. But they are nothing like the Finder "plug-ins" you describe.

[cpac]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
The reason you want an integrated PDF viewer in your document is the same reason you don't want a new window to open every time you click on a link.

I have the feeling that all those saying "just open it in an other application" don't open many PDFs. Why should my PDF displays rob me of the ability to quickly use the back and forward buttons in my browser?

Why would I want to accidentally hit the back button on my browser when I really meant to go back one page in the pdf?

I guess you must be looking at a lot of 1 page .pdfs that you quickly discard, whereas those I open tend to be longer and documents I tend to want to keep in some form.

Why should I have an other window pop up when using Google?

No offense, but this is just plain silly and anyone seriously espousing it clearly doesn't browse a lot of PDFs.

Another window shouldn't pop up in Google - it's not a dead-end web-wise in the way a .pdf is.

The only way to go from a .pdf is backwards whereas a google page is meant to be traveled through. (Yes, I know you can embed links in a .pdf, but if you really mean for people to go through the .pdf, you should have made it a web page to begin with).

[Sven G]

Originally posted by cpac:



OpenDoc = dead.

Services, on the other hand are great. They avoid needless copying/pasting between applications. But they are nothing like the Finder "plug-ins" you describe.

... But Steve Jobs, Dave Hyatt & Co. could "resurrect" OpenDoc ---> OpenDocX + Services ("Lazarus"?) - if only they cared to...

[cpac]

Originally posted by Sven G:


... But Steve Jobs, Dave Hyatt & Co. could "resurrect" OpenDoc ---> OpenDocX + Services ("Lazarus"?) - if only they cared to...

Now we're talking about basic software market philosophies instead of browser-integrated .pdf viewing or even extensive Finder previews.

I just don't think it's going to happen.

[clarkgoble]

Most of my PDFs and most of my HTML are multipage. I'm not sure why you treat them so differently. When I reading physics papers or philosophy papers they are usually fairly long as well. And yes, typically, I don't keep them.

I honestly don't see why they should display differently. The point is the content. While you seem to have an aesthetical desire to have them open in a new window and application, this seems an interruption of my work flow. Further if I want them to so open all I have to do is right click.

BTW - I've never had the problem of accidentally hitting the "back" button instead of the up one page.

[cpac]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I honestly don't see why they should display differently. The point is the content.

Agreed. .pdfs and HTML differ in content in important ways.

A web page has content such as links to other content, live or continually updated information, uncertain "page" sizes (this thread, e.g. is much longer than one page, but isn't broken up into different pages, it also expands horizontally to fill screen space where .pdfs do not.).

A .pdf typically has pages that are 8.5 X 11, are not dynamically updated, and are not linked to information outside of themselves.

Most web pages are "means"--that is, vehicles for arriving at information. .pdfs, by comparison, are end-points: they *are* the information sought.

With such fundamentally different types of content, it seems odd/forced to use the same means of viewing both.

Further, combining the two forces redundant/confusing interface. (e.g. If I'm viewing a .pdf in a browser, do the keyboard shortcuts for the browser or the .pdf viewer apply?) Not to mention being able to see less of the document itself because of an extra row(s) of buttons, &c....


--------------------

That said, does your annoyance with using viewers stem from *not* being able to "quickly use the back and forward buttons of [your] browser?" Would the problem be solved if the .pdfs opened in the background, thus leaving you the ability to immediately click on your browser buttons?

[clarkgoble]

I'm not asking for you to be forced to view your PDFs in the same window anymore than I'm asking you to be forced to use a single application to view your HTML files. All I'm asking for is the option for those of us who treat PDFs the way we treat HTMLs. If you don't work that way, fine. Many of us do and on the PC the browsers permit this.

Personally while working I don't typically notice the difference. To me PDFs aren't "end points" while HTML files are somehow corridors. Hell, half my "end points" are HTML files as well. It is just that HTML is notoriously problematic for technical papers, although sadly some keep trying to do it.

I just think that most Mac browsers ought to have it as an option to display PDF files in the browser.

[Vax]

The point is that a browser is a content viewer (jpeg, html, gif, pdf, etc.). So I don't want to switch between applications for viewing the different kinds of content.
Imagine you have for every picture on a web site a new jpeg viewer app. One site-> 10 picture apps. Switch app, switch app, switch app...


It's just about viewing content comfortable.
By the way a lot of pdf documents have links.

Greetings...
Vax

[cpac]

Originally posted by Vax:
(jpeg, html, gif, pdf, etc.)

One of these things just doesn't belong here...

That's right. .pdf - it's a multi-page type thing by its very nature. None of the others are. Displaying a .pdf in the browser mixes the metaphore because it's the same document, but a different page, whereas a different page in HTML world is a different document.

Your comparison to having to open different jpeg viewers is, therefore, inapt.

By the way a lot of pdf documents have links.

I did acknowledge this above, but no web designer in their right mind, would use a pdf as a intentional intermediary page. Most links in .pdfs I've encountered are either citations to web sources, or company home-page type things.

[cpac]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I just think that most Mac browsers ought to have it as an option to display PDF files in the browser.

That's fine. I've just been arguing that it is unnecessary. I happen to feel the same way about tabs (as command-` switches between windows in much the same way without the limits on screen real estate - but that's another story).

To the extent Mac's might lose potential switchers because of a perception that not opening .pdfs is somehow a handycap, I'll concede development might be a good idea.

There is already some sort of plugin that works to some degree, I just think that, at least for now, there are much more important areas for to cocoa browser developers (i.e. OW & Chimera) to focus on.

[ink]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Perhaps it's just me, but I LOVE how when I click on a PDF it opens in Preview.

I think the PDF in your browser is a throwback to when Adobe thought that PDF would take over the web...

Don't get me wrong, PDFs are great, but I think they should stay as their own things...

I totally agree. In fact, I like Preview (since Jaguar) better than Acrobat too.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Sven G:


Why?

[example] "You see, I'm a newbie, I don't even know what an "application" is: why must I "open" all these "applications" to get my job done?!?

Why can't I view and manipulate these things first of all from the screen which is first presented to me when my computer has finished starting up?" [/example]

It's not so banal, you see...

OS X should at least try to address these issues, which the Classic OS didn't...

In your perfect OS you will end up with one app + plug-ins that will let you view images, movies, PDFs and other document + file managing AND THEN also editing?

The finder should suddenly get an Acrobat like toolbar when editing PDFs? Photoshop like palettes when editing and image?

Your model only for viewing? OK:

[example] "You see, I'm a newbie, I can view my document right here, but why do I have to open it (it's already open, isn't it?!?) in an application to edit ?!? [/example]

[JKT]

cpac, there is one benefit to viewing .pdf in a browser that you are overlooking - it is temporary. Sometimes, downloading .pdfs to your hard drive is unnecessary and consumes time as well as hard drive space (you have to find it to delete it if you didn't want it etc). If it opens in your browser however, you can forget about it as it will eventually be cleared from the cache.

Incidentally, the PDF viewer plugin is actually very nice due to its simplicity - I hope the author doesn't try to make it (too) much more complex than it already is. However, I am finding it quite buggy - scrolling often leaves artefacts in the browser toolbar (the page apparently jumps upwards into the toolbar). I understand that it is still essentially beta, but I'm wondering if it is just me that is having this problem or not.

[manfreds]

Originally posted by JKT:
I am finding it quite buggy - scrolling often leaves artefacts in the browser toolbar (the page apparently jumps upwards into the toolbar). I understand that it is still essentially beta, but I'm wondering if it is just me that is having this problem or not.

I don't know about that. What version of the plugin are you using, with which browser version? And is this with embedded PDF? I'm still having some problems with Chimera and OmniWeb and embedded PDF. Sorry about that.
If you have a reproduceable example, please let me know.

[hudson1]

Originally posted by JKT:
cpac, there is one benefit to viewing .pdf in a browser that you are overlooking - it is temporary.

You beat me to it. The whole idea of the internet is to view content that's stored some other place for all to see and the browser is the "viewer". Without the capability of browsers to display PDF files, we've had to resort to what's really just a work-around -- downloading PDF's.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by JKT:
cpac, there is one benefit to viewing .pdf in a browser that you are overlooking - it is temporary. Sometimes, downloading .pdfs to your hard drive is unnecessary and consumes time as well as hard drive space (you have to find it to delete it if you didn't want it etc). If it opens in your browser however, you can forget about it as it will eventually be cleared from the cache.

You apparently don't understand how the Web works. In fact, all those HTML files and images you see in your browser are downloaded. Generally they're stored in your browser's cache, but they can also be stored in memory; the basic fact is, though, that you do download them. So there's no benefit at all to integrating PDF into the browser; you download it, all the same.

One could, I suppose, say that the browser might only store the PDF in memory (untrue; even with the PDF plugins we see on other platforms, the file gets saved). However, this could easily be worked around using our old pal Services. Just have the browser download the PDF and pipe it into a viewer via Services, and there's your not-saved-to-disk bit.

Or, as another possibility, download the PDF to the browser's cache, and have the viewer open it from there. In fact, most browsers do this very thing, when dealing with opening something straight from a Web page. It still gets automatically deleted eventually, and so it all works out in the end.

There is no need to mix metaphors and confuse users by combining fundamentally different tasks into the same app. The Mac is supposed to be able ease of use; that's a premise antithetical to bloating an app with too many functions.

By the way, just to point something out: this vaunted "PDF integration" you see on other platforms is always provided via a plug-in. There is no browser with built-in PDF-viewing code. Ever stop to wonder why that might be?

[Sven G]

Originally posted by JLL:

[...] Your model only for viewing? OK [...]

Exactly: first of all the "plug-in-able" Finder should use plug-ins for viewing all sorts of documents. Editing them would, of course, still require the full standalone apps to be launched - if there isn't some new form of OpenDoc-like architecture in OS X. So one of the first steps towards a more intuitive and document-centric user interface and interaction would certainly also be this form of Finder with plug-in viewers...

To better ilustrate this visually, here's an IMO interesting example (from the GNOME Desktop 2.0 User Guide, in the Nautilus section):

"[...] View Pane

The view pane can display the contents of the following:

* Particular types of files

* Folders

* Websites

* FTP sites

Nautilus contains viewer components that enable you to display particular types of file in the view pane. For example, you can use a web page viewer to display HTML files in the view pane. The following figure shows a plain text document displayed in the view pane.



Displaying a file in the view pane provides the following benefits:

* Uses less system resources than when you launch an application.

* Takes less time than when you launch an application.

However, you can not edit a file in the view pane. [...]"

[hudson1]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Or, as another possibility, download the PDF to the browser's cache, and have the viewer open it from there. In fact, most browsers do this very thing, when dealing with opening something straight from a Web page. It still gets automatically deleted eventually, and so it all works out in the end.

I think this is largely what people are asking for. Whether it's displayed directly in your browser via a plugin or directly by a PDF viewer seems to be the secondary consideration, especially since PDF's displayed in the browser will often be done so with a separate window being created. With the state of things today, PDF's are ending up on users desktops or Documents folders as permanent files which is rarely desired by the user. Browser cache folders are a different animal. In those cases where the user wants to keep the file permanently, there's always the Save As command.

[asxless]

Originally posted by manfreds:
What's wrong with my "stinkin' plugin"?

While the OSX browser purists debate the 'correctness' of pdf viewing in a browser window.... THANKS for the plugin! It works great.

Now I have the _option_ of viewing pdfs inside a Mozilla browser window. Frankly I had grown weary of cleaning up all the empty browser windows and junk pdfs dumped on my desktop/download folder in the pursuit of OSX browser pdf purity

asxless in iLand

[JKT]

Originally posted by Millennium:

You apparently don't understand how the Web works. In fact, all those HTML files and images you see in your browser are downloaded. Generally they're stored in your browser's cache, but they can also be stored in memory; the basic fact is, though, that you do download them. So there's no benefit at all to integrating PDF into the browser; you download it, all the same.

Huh, where did I claim it wasn't downloaded? I even implied it by mentioning the browser cache. My point was that this download is only temporary (unless you specifically root out the file from the cache) and won't last once it is cleared from there. At present, without a plug-in, you have to download every .pdf, then find it and delete it if you didn't want (e.g. if you only wanted to briefly scan the document or look at some figures etc) which is time and hard disk space consuming. The benefit of having it in the browser is that you don't have to worry about deleting it afterwards.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Millennium:



There is no need to mix metaphors and confuse users by combining fundamentally different tasks into the same app. The Mac is supposed to be able ease of use; that's a premise antithetical to bloating an app with too many functions.

Then it should open the PDF automatically for me, without needing an input from me as to where I wanna save that file, what name I want to give to it or what programm I want to use, or it should allow me to see .PDF in a web browser.

Like another post above stated, people who don't see usage for a PDF capable web browser DO NOT open a lot of PDF from the web. I for once do that at work, and I am glad IE on NT opens the PDF for me, and then if i wanna save it then I have to go through the trouble of giving it a name and finding it an appropriate location on my HD. I should not have to do that in the first place.

It's about choice, and I think the default should be to open in the browser.

villa

[JKT]

Originally posted by manfreds:
I don't know about that. What version of the plugin are you using, with which browser version? And is this with embedded PDF? I'm still having some problems with Chimera and OmniWeb and embedded PDF. Sorry about that.
If you have a reproduceable example, please let me know.

As it happens those are the very two browsers I use. I'll try and get a screenshot to show you what I'm seeing... here you go (this is in Omniweb, but I'm also seeing similar in Chimera):

link 1

link 2

Note how the scrollbar jumps upwards in the top image, and how the favourites toolbar has been wiped by the loaded pdf in the bottom image. This might have something to do with Cocoa and carbon elements intermingling (OmniWeb also has some issues with Quicktime films inserted on pages - you might want to ask the Omni fellas about it).

Edit: plugin version is 0.3

[Edit: Removed inline pictures. DO NOT POST INLINE PICTURES THAT PROP OPEN THE BROWSER WINDOW! --tooki]

[Millennium]

Originally posted by JKT:
t present, without a plug-in, you have to download every .pdf, then find it and delete it if you didn't want (e.g. if you only wanted to briefly scan the document or look at some figures etc) which is time and hard disk space consuming. The benefit of having it in the browser is that you don't have to worry about deleting it afterwards.

Odd, because I've got my browser configured to do exactly this, without bloating it via integrated PDF.

Granted, I'm using Mozilla. But it's pretty simple. You click on a link to PDF. It asks what you want to do with it. Select "Open Using Application" and ckick on your viewer of choice. Then -and this is the important part- make sure that "Always ask before opening this type of file" is unchecked.

Voila. Downloads to the cache, gets deleted eventually like any other file, and I haven't bloated my browser at all.