Re: [evince] Annotation and evince

["jose aliste gmail com" <jose aliste gmail com>]

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Anne Vanhoest <a vanhoest ucl ac uk> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> First obviously I thank you sincerely for the work you are putting into
> the development of evince.
>
> Second, as a scientist I get through a lot of pdfs so every now and again
> I check on the progress of annotations in evince.

Currently in evince 2.32 you can add pdf annotations, but you need
poppler-0.15.

> One point that only came to my attention now, is whether to save the
> annotation with the pdf, or in a separate file.  I would be a very very
> strong advocate of offering at least the option of keeping the annotation
> separate from the file.  I have absolutely no idea how I came to this
> understanding, but it seemed (to me) that there were discussions to embed
> the annotation with the pdf, and that this would be more difficult than
> keeping them in a separate file. Of course the main point here is whether
> it would be easier (in which case yeahhh) or more difficult (in which
> case you may just skip the end of this email) to implement separate
> annotation and pdf files, but I can think of many further
> reasons for the separation of pdf and annotations, some of which are:
> For most internal reports, I am not the only person reading those
> pdfs, and sometimes I very much want my comments to remain private.
> The same goes when reading a paper from our pdf database, I must either
> keep local copies of all papers I have read (with the increased
> complication that I work on a number of different pcs), or have the
> annotations saved separately (on the pdf server).  Upon opening the pdf
> using evince, the reader could be offered to overlay the annotation (from
> one or more files) or start with a "clean" paper.
> Multiple annotation files would also make collaboration easier.  This is
> probably only relevant for people like me who do not use word but latex to
> produce documents. Ho, and I also think that my teaching would benefit
> from distinct annotations files.
> Sure enough keeping separate files will increase the complexity in some
> ways (eg what happens when one file is moved), but the more I think about
> it the more reasons I find in favour of separate files.  And as long as
> evince is somehow "aware" of the existence of those annotation files, it
> would be nearly seamless for the users.


The plan is to implement annotations using the pdf standard, which
means that they are added to the pdf file itself.
However, for instance, bookmarks have just been implemented by Carlos
in the current developement version and I believe that these are saved
using GIO metadata, which means that are in a metadata database
separated from the PDF.

Greetings

José

>
> Of course, it's always easy to ask and again I already thank you for the
> development evince.
>
> Many thanks
>
> And if you enjoy this time of the year, have a happy Xmas.
>
> anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ###########################################
>
> anne Vanhoest
>
> Implanted Devices Group
>
> Medical Physics and Bioengineering Department
> Malet Place Engineering Building
> UCL
>
> Gower Street
> WC1E 6BT London
>
> phone: 020 7679 0296 (internal: 30296)
> fax: 020 7679 0255
> _______________________________________________
> evince-list mailing list
> evince-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evince-list
>