Re: note-taking and PDF annotation: jarnal
David Bremner wrote am 4/8/2009 12:30 PM:
> Michael Hanke wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 05:16:00PM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>>>
>>> Xournal is in debian, and seems to work OK. Is jarnal superior to
>>> xournal in some way?
>
>> Okular also has annotation capabilities and is in Debian.
>
> My experience with okular annotation has not been too positive so far.
> Some of it is just bugs because the features are new, but also I find
> the current okular model of storing the annotations in ~/.kde not very
> useful. On the other hand, okular deals with PDF as PDF, rather than
> rasterizing it, as I believe xournal does. So these two at least have
> different niches.
>From my quick look at the xournal homepage, I also had the impression
that xournal uses pdftoppm or something like this. And keeping
modifications in your local home-directory is only fine as long as you
only use the file from this one account...
Jarnal actually has the advantage of keeping the pdf as it is and adding
annotations/markings directly to the pdf. So you can even save to normal
pdf afterwards and mail to somebody else or take with you and it will
keep everything and show it also when opening on another computer. The
pdf does not even get rasterized - you can still extract/copy the
original text (if there was any).
>
> flpsed sounds nice. There is also pdfedit which in principle seems
> similar. I haven't really used either.
>From my experience, pdfedit is not overly user-friendly... ;-)
>
> Do these tools seem appropriate for the increasingly-misnamed
> typesetting task?
>
> What about renaming typesetting to "document production"?
hmm, sounds slightly more appropriate. But this probably needs some
deeper thought than I can give it right now.
Best Regards,
Jan
Reply to: