I got the expected result in Evince (Linux) and Microsoft Edge (Win).
#Scribus edit pdf pdf#
i got this result in Adobe Reader 9 (Linux), Adobe Reader DC (Win), Master PDF Editor (Linux), Chromium (Linux).
I only have what I can see here to go from so can you justify your stance with actual examples of people wanting such a thing? What exactly were they asking for and why were they asking for it?īasically: I have written proof above that people do not want a read-only preview mode. The received tab order is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 7, 10, 9. It's clear to me - from what I can read - that people DO NOT WANT a "read only" preview mode. This license indicates you may obtain it freely, to use, distribute, copy, as well as study and even modify the programs source code. It is free and distributed under the GNU GPL license. You cannot 'unprint' paper easily can you There are only two applications which can 'edit' PDF. It is better to think of PDF as electronic paper which is printed. Internally it is non-linear in layout and is optimised for compactness. And please explain why their requirements outweigh the needs of other users. Scribus is a program for professional page layout, for creating PDF (Portable Document Format) files. PDF as file format was never ever meant to editable in the conventional sense. you can set up your document in Scribus, and then use the prefl ight tools in the PDF editor. Who, exactly, has said that the functionality should have been changed? Where did they say it? How many people said it? Please give examples. Export Your Scribus File as a B&W Print-Ready PDF Interior. No reasons are given, just a vague "many people asked for" it. There is a hint that some people may have asked for it but no actual facts behind it. There are six people saying they want it back the way it was and NONE saying that it should be changed. Not one example has been given here of someone giving a reason - any reason at all - why the current (1.4.6) way of working should have been changed.
#Scribus edit pdf software#
The users want to make changes therefore the software should allow changes to be made.
This negates your argument people do want to make changes therefore changes should not be forbidden. Saying "if you don't want changes to be made in Preview Mode, then changes must be forbidden" is all well and good - as it stands, as an argument without context - but, just from the people commenting on this ticket, there are a lot of people who DO want to make changes in Preview Mode.
That's a well-meaning argument that's been erroneously applied.