Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later
by dvdkhlng on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @06:38AM
(#24118967)
> The primary downside is the remarkable dangerousness of much of the JavaScript that is found bound to the HTML.
Are you aware that PDF format has also featured JavaScript support (and related vulnerabilities) for a long time now [1]?
Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later
by bryanrasmussen on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @08:26AM
(#24119575)
yes, although I forgot about it, never seem to have a use for it myself.
Re:PDF: Still unfit for human consumption, 20 years later
by jabroni_salad on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @09:51AM
(#24120212)
The finance industry loves it. Their bureaucracy ran on documents, and it still does, but now those documents can run code.
I can't help but think that HTML's third downside is the remarkable unevenness of the its quality.
The second downside is the remarkable unevenness of the quality of the CSS that is used with it.
The primary downside is the remarkable dangerousness of much of the JavaScript that is found bound to the HTML, that if turned off means that you often see a message that this site requires you turn on our dangerous JavaScript. At the best you end up back with the second and third downsides moving up a level.
on edit: perhaps a little facetious, but given the problems with quality found with websites that probably most of us are aware of it seems a bit much to complain about the quality of PDF. Maybe this is just some silly whataboutism on my part though.