Re: Beta page (pdfs)

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 00:59, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> 2010/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
>>>> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
>>>> about how much software can read it successfully.
>>
>>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
>>> suggesting a big thumbs-down,
>>
>> There's a version history at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Versions
>> that shows the main changes between successive PDF versions.
>> I don't actually see much related to compression since 1.4,
>> other than adding JPEG2000 image compression which would certainly
>> not help any for our docs.
>>
>> So at this point I'm wondering if the reported size difference is
>> really PDF-version-related or just indicates inefficiency in the output
>> from pdfjadetex.  If the latter, it might be fixable without creating
>> compatibility problems.  It's not something that interests me enough
>> to put work into, though.
>
> Looks like a bloat issue to me.  Just used jPDF Tweak on the file and
> it compresses it down to 7.2MB, and still remains a 1.4 PDF.

Cool - I can reproduce that with jPDF Tweak. That sounds like
something we should use as part of our standard way of doing the PDFs
for the website at least. I just did a simple:
java -jar pdftweak.jar postgresql-9.0rc1-A4.pdf -os compressed.pdf.

Devrim, is this something you can easily put into your process for
building the website PDFs?

I haven't verified that the contents are ok beyond a very quick check
though - we should probably do that too.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/