Oliver Ruebenacker wrote:
> That NIH insists on using Adobe Reader is indeed disturbing. But
> then, what is the alternative to Adobe Reader, if free software
> apparently does not support the latest PDF?
Paper, as they have used in the past? A set of regular PDFs, one per form
(and the fancy JavaScript-loaded crap as an alternative for the people who
can't figure it out)? There are plenty of alternatives which wouldn't lock
users into proprietary software. You should not give those bureaucrats a
free pass for this! (That you have to deal with it is one thing, but that
you then defend their unreasonable choice doesn't make sense.)
Kevin Kofler
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
