|
From: | Matthew Richer |
Subject: | RE: [Swftools-common] version 1.0? |
Date: | Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:11:05 -0400 |
As for Chris' suggestion for addressing feature requests from
customers that is exactly what we do currently. [Paraphrasing] Support: " This is most likely due to the fact that your
PDF is using some blended transparencies that are not yet supported. This is a
known limitation of our current system. We are always attempting to improve
the system as quickly as we can... ramble on about how they can 'flatten' a PDF
beforehand instead of preserving layers, etc. ... However, if you feel this is
a critical feature you would like to have we can expedite development through the
use of custom development services. 9 times out of 10 the feature they 'want' isn't that high up on
their list and they learn to work within the limitations, which for us anyways,
aren't that limiting at all. Basically we run PDF2SWF on a three phase
approach. Once regularly, and if it fails, then with -O1 and if that fails
-O2. So we try to maximize the conversion this way. Cheers, Matt P.S. As I get more and more comfortable with SWFTools I will
become more and more active on the list. From:
address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On
Behalf Of Aaron Hawryluk snip
Hearty agreement on this end. I did some contract work
building scripts for a provider to run PDF2SWF solutions a while back, and
they absolutely refused to give any of their clients any hint that they were
using open source, going so far as to claim to client's faces it was a
"proprietary" solution (yeah, right... well the scripts were
proprietary anyway lol).
Ditto. |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |