Yes, and many of this things are "in general" not well supported by anything but adobe PDF.

Even most simple interactive things can easily not work correctly even in more widely spread PDF readers.

IMHO PDF is in many ways worse then HTML, it's just that this ways are less commonly used, but if you start a PDF instead of HTML trend it's just a matter of time until this "not so compatible" aspects of PDF become widely used by some people.

JS in a PDF? You can do that in HTML, why not use the tools you already have that work together by design?

This guy is arguing that removing JS is what makes the web better. Having published, static, paper-like content is the way forward.

Just caveating a technical statement I knew wasn't quite true, not making any sort of assessment either way.

As someone who has had to extract data from large sets of PDFs and modern web presentation formats, I'm not a fan of either, really. Even verifying that a visibly presented string exists in a PDF document programmatically can be a non-trivial task, as with a given website as well. That to me says a lot.

monkeynotes seems to take the line that technical defects in claims others make fatally undermines their case, but technical defects in his/her arguments are irrelevancies.

For what it's worth, the same objection occured to me. The use of scripting I've seen in PDFs has been use-supporting and consistent with their book-like feel.