<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_05_1659221</id>
	<title>Adobe Security Chief Defends JavaScript Support</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262710800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Trailrunner7 writes <i>"Despite the fact that the majority of [PDF-related] malware exploits use JavaScript to trigger an attack in Adobe's PDF Reader product, the company says it's impossible to completely remove JavaScript support without causing major compatibility problems. In a <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/despite-danger-adobe-says-javascript-support-important-010410?utm\_source=Threatpost&amp;utm\_medium=Tabs&amp;utm\_campaign=Today's+Most+Popular">Q&amp;A on Threatpost</a>, Adobe security chief Brad Arkin says the removal of JavaScript support is a non-starter because it's an integral part of how users do form submissions. '"Anytime you're working with a PDF where you're entering information, JavaScript is used to do things like verify that the date you entered is the right format.  If you're entering a phone number for a certain country it'll verify that you've got the right number of digits.  When you click 'submit' on the form it'll go to the right place.  All of this stuff has JavaScript behind the scenes making it work and it's difficult to remove without causing problems," Arkin explained.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trailrunner7 writes " Despite the fact that the majority of [ PDF-related ] malware exploits use JavaScript to trigger an attack in Adobe 's PDF Reader product , the company says it 's impossible to completely remove JavaScript support without causing major compatibility problems .
In a Q&amp;A on Threatpost , Adobe security chief Brad Arkin says the removal of JavaScript support is a non-starter because it 's an integral part of how users do form submissions .
' " Anytime you 're working with a PDF where you 're entering information , JavaScript is used to do things like verify that the date you entered is the right format .
If you 're entering a phone number for a certain country it 'll verify that you 've got the right number of digits .
When you click 'submit ' on the form it 'll go to the right place .
All of this stuff has JavaScript behind the scenes making it work and it 's difficult to remove without causing problems , " Arkin explained .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trailrunner7 writes "Despite the fact that the majority of [PDF-related] malware exploits use JavaScript to trigger an attack in Adobe's PDF Reader product, the company says it's impossible to completely remove JavaScript support without causing major compatibility problems.
In a Q&amp;A on Threatpost, Adobe security chief Brad Arkin says the removal of JavaScript support is a non-starter because it's an integral part of how users do form submissions.
'"Anytime you're working with a PDF where you're entering information, JavaScript is used to do things like verify that the date you entered is the right format.
If you're entering a phone number for a certain country it'll verify that you've got the right number of digits.
When you click 'submit' on the form it'll go to the right place.
All of this stuff has JavaScript behind the scenes making it work and it's difficult to remove without causing problems," Arkin explained.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656836</id>
	<title>How difficult is it to remove Adobe Reader?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, how damaged would the world be without form-based PDFs?  I removed almost every plug-in from my copy of Adobe Reader.  I don't need their "rights management" or their "braille reader" or their "web submission plugin" or any of that other cruft.</p><p>And somehow my life is not incomplete as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , how damaged would the world be without form-based PDFs ?
I removed almost every plug-in from my copy of Adobe Reader .
I do n't need their " rights management " or their " braille reader " or their " web submission plugin " or any of that other cruft.And somehow my life is not incomplete as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, how damaged would the world be without form-based PDFs?
I removed almost every plug-in from my copy of Adobe Reader.
I don't need their "rights management" or their "braille reader" or their "web submission plugin" or any of that other cruft.And somehow my life is not incomplete as a result.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656862</id>
	<title>PDF forms? DIE!</title>
	<author>FrostedWheat</author>
	<datestamp>1262714820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only thing I learned when we used PDF forms a few years ago was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... don't do it. Just no. Really, <b> <i>don't</i> </b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing I learned when we used PDF forms a few years ago was ... do n't do it .
Just no .
Really , do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing I learned when we used PDF forms a few years ago was ... don't do it.
Just no.
Really,  don't .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659790</id>
	<title>Re:PDF with a form?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262683080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I really can't remember the last time I saw a PDF that had a form in it that you could submit. Was it 2001? possibly 2003 at the very latest. The idea never caught on, and why would it? you get some minimal HTTP POST support in a proprietary format. To me it would seem more important that you have an up-to-date version of the form you are submitting, rather than having the form's formatting look *exactly* right without loss in formatting which is the whole point of PDF.</p></div><p>I recently used a PDF form that submitted through the web to file Texas Franchise Tax forms for my business.  I filled out the form in Adobe Reader 9 in Ubuntu.  I don't see why the same form couldn't be implemented in HTML/JavaScript.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I really ca n't remember the last time I saw a PDF that had a form in it that you could submit .
Was it 2001 ?
possibly 2003 at the very latest .
The idea never caught on , and why would it ?
you get some minimal HTTP POST support in a proprietary format .
To me it would seem more important that you have an up-to-date version of the form you are submitting , rather than having the form 's formatting look * exactly * right without loss in formatting which is the whole point of PDF.I recently used a PDF form that submitted through the web to file Texas Franchise Tax forms for my business .
I filled out the form in Adobe Reader 9 in Ubuntu .
I do n't see why the same form could n't be implemented in HTML/JavaScript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really can't remember the last time I saw a PDF that had a form in it that you could submit.
Was it 2001?
possibly 2003 at the very latest.
The idea never caught on, and why would it?
you get some minimal HTTP POST support in a proprietary format.
To me it would seem more important that you have an up-to-date version of the form you are submitting, rather than having the form's formatting look *exactly* right without loss in formatting which is the whole point of PDF.I recently used a PDF form that submitted through the web to file Texas Franchise Tax forms for my business.
I filled out the form in Adobe Reader 9 in Ubuntu.
I don't see why the same form couldn't be implemented in HTML/JavaScript.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656888</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660578</id>
	<title>Please let me...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1262685840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, let me hit him in the head with a bat, I promise I wont let him suffer, please, let me make him see the light.<br>What a mofo, sounds way too much like a clueless idiot, that got his job handed to him by being a family or friend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , let me hit him in the head with a bat , I promise I wont let him suffer , please , let me make him see the light.What a mofo , sounds way too much like a clueless idiot , that got his job handed to him by being a family or friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, let me hit him in the head with a bat, I promise I wont let him suffer, please, let me make him see the light.What a mofo, sounds way too much like a clueless idiot, that got his job handed to him by being a family or friend.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659194</id>
	<title>PDF doesn't have Postscript?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262723700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does it have to be Javascript. I thought PDF was built on top of Postscript, a language in it's own right. Why not use that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it have to be Javascript .
I thought PDF was built on top of Postscript , a language in it 's own right .
Why not use that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it have to be Javascript.
I thought PDF was built on top of Postscript, a language in it's own right.
Why not use that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657962</id>
	<title>Re:Why not html forms?</title>
	<author>VGR</author>
	<datestamp>1262718300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing people who choose to create PDF forms are WYSIWYG-obsessed, and Adobe is catering to them.  Remember all those web pages in the 90s that contained 1x1 blank GIFs for spacing?  The people who made those things are still around, somewhere.  Perhaps they are Adobe's target market.</p><p>I've actually seen an entire web page replaced with an Acrobat document containing hyperlinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing people who choose to create PDF forms are WYSIWYG-obsessed , and Adobe is catering to them .
Remember all those web pages in the 90s that contained 1x1 blank GIFs for spacing ?
The people who made those things are still around , somewhere .
Perhaps they are Adobe 's target market.I 've actually seen an entire web page replaced with an Acrobat document containing hyperlinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing people who choose to create PDF forms are WYSIWYG-obsessed, and Adobe is catering to them.
Remember all those web pages in the 90s that contained 1x1 blank GIFs for spacing?
The people who made those things are still around, somewhere.
Perhaps they are Adobe's target market.I've actually seen an entire web page replaced with an Acrobat document containing hyperlinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658352</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1262719980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the wild? Tax form PDFs. That's about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the wild ?
Tax form PDFs .
That 's about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the wild?
Tax form PDFs.
That's about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657522</id>
	<title>Re:B-A-L-O-N-E-Y</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wha? You do realise that Java and JavaScript are two very distinctly different languages, right?</p><p>Hello?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...off topic rage post...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wha ?
You do realise that Java and JavaScript are two very distinctly different languages , right ? Hello ?
...off topic rage post.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wha?
You do realise that Java and JavaScript are two very distinctly different languages, right?Hello?
...off topic rage post...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658320</id>
	<title>Re:Fine, but...</title>
	<author>Spliffster</author>
	<datestamp>1262719860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had mod points, i would mod you up.<br><br>Paper is really getting less important to People. PDF is best used for generating print ready documents or archiving old and newly created documents. It's a print media used read-only. When we need to submit data there are various better suited ways, today html/http is preferred (specially when cross-platform compatibility is of concern).<br><br>Integrating form functionality and scriptability is a desperate try to transform a static print media into an interactive online media. Too many other technologies do it already, so there is no need for replacement (and wasn't early this decade when forms were added to PDF).<br><br>What I never understood is, why adobe hasn't added a simple data store in their document format. Then extend the "Reader" to be able to store data in the document in a standardised way. A filled out form would stay filled out. it could be archived, mailed and automatically processed by software which imports this data back into other storage system(s).<br><br>Cheers,<br>-S</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had mod points , i would mod you up.Paper is really getting less important to People .
PDF is best used for generating print ready documents or archiving old and newly created documents .
It 's a print media used read-only .
When we need to submit data there are various better suited ways , today html/http is preferred ( specially when cross-platform compatibility is of concern ) .Integrating form functionality and scriptability is a desperate try to transform a static print media into an interactive online media .
Too many other technologies do it already , so there is no need for replacement ( and was n't early this decade when forms were added to PDF ) .What I never understood is , why adobe has n't added a simple data store in their document format .
Then extend the " Reader " to be able to store data in the document in a standardised way .
A filled out form would stay filled out .
it could be archived , mailed and automatically processed by software which imports this data back into other storage system ( s ) .Cheers,-S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had mod points, i would mod you up.Paper is really getting less important to People.
PDF is best used for generating print ready documents or archiving old and newly created documents.
It's a print media used read-only.
When we need to submit data there are various better suited ways, today html/http is preferred (specially when cross-platform compatibility is of concern).Integrating form functionality and scriptability is a desperate try to transform a static print media into an interactive online media.
Too many other technologies do it already, so there is no need for replacement (and wasn't early this decade when forms were added to PDF).What I never understood is, why adobe hasn't added a simple data store in their document format.
Then extend the "Reader" to be able to store data in the document in a standardised way.
A filled out form would stay filled out.
it could be archived, mailed and automatically processed by software which imports this data back into other storage system(s).Cheers,-S</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657194</id>
	<title>Keep your JS but...</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1262715840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dont run it automatically. Have the default be JS off and a nice scary warning box about JS and how you should only enable it if you are certain this is a safe PDF.  Sure, its not a perfect solution but its better than just having it on by default and running vulnerabilities at double-click.</p><p>Not to mention, when I shut it off under Preferences - KEEP IT OFF. If its off in preferences, it helpfully reminds the user than its off and offers to re-enable it via the prompt. What the hell is Adobe thinking?</p><p>While I'm at it how about updates to the reader that arent 40-150 megabytes big or an updater that actually works.  Right now, sane people should be considering Reader are very serious security vulnerability and migrating off the platform. Adobe has shown nothing but contempt for even basic security.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont run it automatically .
Have the default be JS off and a nice scary warning box about JS and how you should only enable it if you are certain this is a safe PDF .
Sure , its not a perfect solution but its better than just having it on by default and running vulnerabilities at double-click.Not to mention , when I shut it off under Preferences - KEEP IT OFF .
If its off in preferences , it helpfully reminds the user than its off and offers to re-enable it via the prompt .
What the hell is Adobe thinking ? While I 'm at it how about updates to the reader that arent 40-150 megabytes big or an updater that actually works .
Right now , sane people should be considering Reader are very serious security vulnerability and migrating off the platform .
Adobe has shown nothing but contempt for even basic security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont run it automatically.
Have the default be JS off and a nice scary warning box about JS and how you should only enable it if you are certain this is a safe PDF.
Sure, its not a perfect solution but its better than just having it on by default and running vulnerabilities at double-click.Not to mention, when I shut it off under Preferences - KEEP IT OFF.
If its off in preferences, it helpfully reminds the user than its off and offers to re-enable it via the prompt.
What the hell is Adobe thinking?While I'm at it how about updates to the reader that arent 40-150 megabytes big or an updater that actually works.
Right now, sane people should be considering Reader are very serious security vulnerability and migrating off the platform.
Adobe has shown nothing but contempt for even basic security.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30665634</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>slater86</author>
	<datestamp>1262712780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could even go as far as the "I trust this author button" (IT Dept can prefill this in registry or something)<br>various other apps use this method where security is imperative like the noscript addon for firefox or Internet Explorer's trusted sites feature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could even go as far as the " I trust this author button " ( IT Dept can prefill this in registry or something ) various other apps use this method where security is imperative like the noscript addon for firefox or Internet Explorer 's trusted sites feature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could even go as far as the "I trust this author button" (IT Dept can prefill this in registry or something)various other apps use this method where security is imperative like the noscript addon for firefox or Internet Explorer's trusted sites feature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656858</id>
	<title>Tea and pramwiches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Anytime you're working with a baby pram where you're, say, also carrying diapers, our chainsaw is used to do things like verify that the Pampers fit on that little shelf underneath. If you're carrying some groceries as well, the chainsaw verifies that you don't try to fit too much on there. When you push the pram, the chainsaw makes sure you push it to the right place. All of this stuff has the chainsaw behind the scenes making it work and it's difficult to remove without causing problems," Arkin explained.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Anytime you 're working with a baby pram where you 're , say , also carrying diapers , our chainsaw is used to do things like verify that the Pampers fit on that little shelf underneath .
If you 're carrying some groceries as well , the chainsaw verifies that you do n't try to fit too much on there .
When you push the pram , the chainsaw makes sure you push it to the right place .
All of this stuff has the chainsaw behind the scenes making it work and it 's difficult to remove without causing problems , " Arkin explained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Anytime you're working with a baby pram where you're, say, also carrying diapers, our chainsaw is used to do things like verify that the Pampers fit on that little shelf underneath.
If you're carrying some groceries as well, the chainsaw verifies that you don't try to fit too much on there.
When you push the pram, the chainsaw makes sure you push it to the right place.
All of this stuff has the chainsaw behind the scenes making it work and it's difficult to remove without causing problems," Arkin explained.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656884</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm also surprised the Adobe Security Chief didn't consider the option of ditching PDF for HTML in this interview</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm also surprised the Adobe Security Chief did n't consider the option of ditching PDF for HTML in this interview</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm also surprised the Adobe Security Chief didn't consider the option of ditching PDF for HTML in this interview</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657170</id>
	<title>Re:Why not html forms?</title>
	<author>Volante3192</author>
	<datestamp>1262715780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one case I can see for using a PDF form is to have a hard copy print out with the fields filled properly.  I've used one for the DMV like that.</p><p>Anything you're submitting electronically, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one case I can see for using a PDF form is to have a hard copy print out with the fields filled properly .
I 've used one for the DMV like that.Anything you 're submitting electronically , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one case I can see for using a PDF form is to have a hard copy print out with the fields filled properly.
I've used one for the DMV like that.Anything you're submitting electronically, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657742</id>
	<title>Re:Why not html forms?</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1262717640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll bite.  The "blanks" on most of the paper forms we have to turn into various city &amp; state governments for permitting &amp; such are so small that if you are successful in filling them out, they probably won't be legible.  It's much easier for me to scan them to a PDF, &amp; make some "blanks" that you can fill in.  Took me about 30 minutes total the last time I had to make one.  It would take me a lot longer to do this in HTML &amp; they still wouldn't look like the forms that the DOT expects us to be using.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bite .
The " blanks " on most of the paper forms we have to turn into various city &amp; state governments for permitting &amp; such are so small that if you are successful in filling them out , they probably wo n't be legible .
It 's much easier for me to scan them to a PDF , &amp; make some " blanks " that you can fill in .
Took me about 30 minutes total the last time I had to make one .
It would take me a lot longer to do this in HTML &amp; they still would n't look like the forms that the DOT expects us to be using .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bite.
The "blanks" on most of the paper forms we have to turn into various city &amp; state governments for permitting &amp; such are so small that if you are successful in filling them out, they probably won't be legible.
It's much easier for me to scan them to a PDF, &amp; make some "blanks" that you can fill in.
Took me about 30 minutes total the last time I had to make one.
It would take me a lot longer to do this in HTML &amp; they still wouldn't look like the forms that the DOT expects us to be using.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658720</id>
	<title>Yeah, right</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262721360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>All of this stuff has JavaScript behind the scenes making it work and it's difficult to remove without causing problems," Arkin explained.</i> Translation: "We designed the products with a flawed security model to begin with and fixing that now would cause applications built on them that depend on defects in the security model in order to operate to no longer work."</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of this stuff has JavaScript behind the scenes making it work and it 's difficult to remove without causing problems , " Arkin explained .
Translation : " We designed the products with a flawed security model to begin with and fixing that now would cause applications built on them that depend on defects in the security model in order to operate to no longer work .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of this stuff has JavaScript behind the scenes making it work and it's difficult to remove without causing problems," Arkin explained.
Translation: "We designed the products with a flawed security model to begin with and fixing that now would cause applications built on them that depend on defects in the security model in order to operate to no longer work.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659582</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1262682120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a problem with closed-source software in general, especially for closed-source software sold on the "fee per license or upgrade" model, and not just Adobe; although, many Adobe products are classic examples of this problem. In the Free Software world the software tends to reach a stable state in which most users are completely (or almost completely) satisfied and the rest is remanded to plugins or addons; especially for niche features that might interest only 1\% of the users and not the rest. In Free Software, once a problem is "well solved" there is less incentive to add "bloatware" features in order to generate additional licensing or upgrade fees and so these features are not added, or at least they are not added to the core product, and users can choose additional features, if they want them, from the plugin or addon developers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a problem with closed-source software in general , especially for closed-source software sold on the " fee per license or upgrade " model , and not just Adobe ; although , many Adobe products are classic examples of this problem .
In the Free Software world the software tends to reach a stable state in which most users are completely ( or almost completely ) satisfied and the rest is remanded to plugins or addons ; especially for niche features that might interest only 1 \ % of the users and not the rest .
In Free Software , once a problem is " well solved " there is less incentive to add " bloatware " features in order to generate additional licensing or upgrade fees and so these features are not added , or at least they are not added to the core product , and users can choose additional features , if they want them , from the plugin or addon developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a problem with closed-source software in general, especially for closed-source software sold on the "fee per license or upgrade" model, and not just Adobe; although, many Adobe products are classic examples of this problem.
In the Free Software world the software tends to reach a stable state in which most users are completely (or almost completely) satisfied and the rest is remanded to plugins or addons; especially for niche features that might interest only 1\% of the users and not the rest.
In Free Software, once a problem is "well solved" there is less incentive to add "bloatware" features in order to generate additional licensing or upgrade fees and so these features are not added, or at least they are not added to the core product, and users can choose additional features, if they want them, from the plugin or addon developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660060</id>
	<title>Re:PDF Javascript vs WWW Javascript</title>
	<author>Sleepy</author>
	<datestamp>1262684100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;What's the difference? Is Adobe just not sandboxing Javascript code properly? I've never really used Adobe's products for this... but what's to stop them from just using an established javascript implementation like that used in Firefox or Webkit?</p><p>Peer review.</p><p>Shine a light (or point enough eyeballs) on a bug, and it becomes transparent. Someone will send a patch in for review, or public debate will force an architecture change to safer methods. This is how open source applications like FireFox work. When ICANN said it was OK to start selling domains in non-latin characters which LOOK like latin, phishers drolled at the prospect of owning something that looks like "paypal.com" in hundreds of different forms (Cyrillic's latin looking characters, etc). Firefox developers voted to revolt, and not display non-latin domain names in a exploitable fashion.</p><p>Adobe's security experts (and the community) can give their input to Adobe, but Adobe marketing gets to say what is and what is not "a non-starter". There's a valid concern of repeat vulnerabilities here, and Marketing (correctly so) knows convenience over security means MORE SALES.</p><p>Adobe is accountable ONLY to their shareholders, who can legally sue them for not moving the upgrade-treadmill fast enough (shareholder value).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What 's the difference ?
Is Adobe just not sandboxing Javascript code properly ?
I 've never really used Adobe 's products for this... but what 's to stop them from just using an established javascript implementation like that used in Firefox or Webkit ? Peer review.Shine a light ( or point enough eyeballs ) on a bug , and it becomes transparent .
Someone will send a patch in for review , or public debate will force an architecture change to safer methods .
This is how open source applications like FireFox work .
When ICANN said it was OK to start selling domains in non-latin characters which LOOK like latin , phishers drolled at the prospect of owning something that looks like " paypal.com " in hundreds of different forms ( Cyrillic 's latin looking characters , etc ) .
Firefox developers voted to revolt , and not display non-latin domain names in a exploitable fashion.Adobe 's security experts ( and the community ) can give their input to Adobe , but Adobe marketing gets to say what is and what is not " a non-starter " .
There 's a valid concern of repeat vulnerabilities here , and Marketing ( correctly so ) knows convenience over security means MORE SALES.Adobe is accountable ONLY to their shareholders , who can legally sue them for not moving the upgrade-treadmill fast enough ( shareholder value ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;What's the difference?
Is Adobe just not sandboxing Javascript code properly?
I've never really used Adobe's products for this... but what's to stop them from just using an established javascript implementation like that used in Firefox or Webkit?Peer review.Shine a light (or point enough eyeballs) on a bug, and it becomes transparent.
Someone will send a patch in for review, or public debate will force an architecture change to safer methods.
This is how open source applications like FireFox work.
When ICANN said it was OK to start selling domains in non-latin characters which LOOK like latin, phishers drolled at the prospect of owning something that looks like "paypal.com" in hundreds of different forms (Cyrillic's latin looking characters, etc).
Firefox developers voted to revolt, and not display non-latin domain names in a exploitable fashion.Adobe's security experts (and the community) can give their input to Adobe, but Adobe marketing gets to say what is and what is not "a non-starter".
There's a valid concern of repeat vulnerabilities here, and Marketing (correctly so) knows convenience over security means MORE SALES.Adobe is accountable ONLY to their shareholders, who can legally sue them for not moving the upgrade-treadmill fast enough (shareholder value).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656874</id>
	<title>Simple answer</title>
	<author>just\_another\_sean</author>
	<datestamp>1262714880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>White listed docs/publishers are the only ones allowed to run JavaScript. White listing<br>should be as easy as pushing a "Trust this document" or "Trust this publisher" button.</p><p>Will it/can it be abused? Sure, but it's better then running script by default without<br>user consent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>White listed docs/publishers are the only ones allowed to run JavaScript .
White listingshould be as easy as pushing a " Trust this document " or " Trust this publisher " button.Will it/can it be abused ?
Sure , but it 's better then running script by default withoutuser consent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>White listed docs/publishers are the only ones allowed to run JavaScript.
White listingshould be as easy as pushing a "Trust this document" or "Trust this publisher" button.Will it/can it be abused?
Sure, but it's better then running script by default withoutuser consent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657260</id>
	<title>B-A-L-O-N-E-Y</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1262716080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep Java is such a powerful language... it is the only one that can verify the correct number of digits for a phone number, the right date, etc.  So there all you purist language tards; things like C++, C, perl, python, etal are utter crap compared to the almighty Java and its scripts. Who cares if there are a few security issues introduced, Adobe could not give a shit about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep Java is such a powerful language... it is the only one that can verify the correct number of digits for a phone number , the right date , etc .
So there all you purist language tards ; things like C + + , C , perl , python , etal are utter crap compared to the almighty Java and its scripts .
Who cares if there are a few security issues introduced , Adobe could not give a shit about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep Java is such a powerful language... it is the only one that can verify the correct number of digits for a phone number, the right date, etc.
So there all you purist language tards; things like C++, C, perl, python, etal are utter crap compared to the almighty Java and its scripts.
Who cares if there are a few security issues introduced, Adobe could not give a shit about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657072</id>
	<title>Security Not the *Only* Consideration</title>
	<author>Alphanos</author>
	<datestamp>1262715420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing that in the face of one known problem, someone knowledgeable about the issues can remain aware of another problem.  This silly guy would be much better off to ignore all other issues when examining a problem, regardless of whether proposed solutions would have other undesired consequences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing that in the face of one known problem , someone knowledgeable about the issues can remain aware of another problem .
This silly guy would be much better off to ignore all other issues when examining a problem , regardless of whether proposed solutions would have other undesired consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing that in the face of one known problem, someone knowledgeable about the issues can remain aware of another problem.
This silly guy would be much better off to ignore all other issues when examining a problem, regardless of whether proposed solutions would have other undesired consequences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657404</id>
	<title>Stop right there.</title>
	<author>geminidomino</author>
	<datestamp>1262716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anytime you're working with a PDF where you're entering information, <b>you've already failed</b></p> </div><p>Fixed that for you, dipshit.</p><p>You can't defend a stupid idea by saying that without it, another stupid idea would be impossible.</p><p>Well, I guess you CAN, since this knob just DID. He just didn't do a very good job of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime you 're working with a PDF where you 're entering information , you 've already failed Fixed that for you , dipshit.You ca n't defend a stupid idea by saying that without it , another stupid idea would be impossible.Well , I guess you CAN , since this knob just DID .
He just did n't do a very good job of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime you're working with a PDF where you're entering information, you've already failed Fixed that for you, dipshit.You can't defend a stupid idea by saying that without it, another stupid idea would be impossible.Well, I guess you CAN, since this knob just DID.
He just didn't do a very good job of it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658986</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>thsths</author>
	<datestamp>1262722680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If you agree, the "on" setting sticks for subsequent documents, until you go into the menu and turn it off again.</p><p>And I think each update also turns it on again automatically. I wonder when they will start a more frequent update cycle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If you agree , the " on " setting sticks for subsequent documents , until you go into the menu and turn it off again.And I think each update also turns it on again automatically .
I wonder when they will start a more frequent update cycle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If you agree, the "on" setting sticks for subsequent documents, until you go into the menu and turn it off again.And I think each update also turns it on again automatically.
I wonder when they will start a more frequent update cycle...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656794</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>loganljb</author>
	<datestamp>1262714640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, gee -- how about creating the equivalent of noscript for Adobe, then?  That way, the user can decide for themselves if they want to run scripts in what they THOUGHT was just a formatted text document.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , gee -- how about creating the equivalent of noscript for Adobe , then ?
That way , the user can decide for themselves if they want to run scripts in what they THOUGHT was just a formatted text document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, gee -- how about creating the equivalent of noscript for Adobe, then?
That way, the user can decide for themselves if they want to run scripts in what they THOUGHT was just a formatted text document.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658752</id>
	<title>Re:PDF Javascript vs WWW Javascript</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1262721420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only trojan horse software infection I ever got was vectored through Adobe Acrobat Reader JavaScript.<br>It was a form of the Vundo trojan horse <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vundo" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vundo</a> [wikipedia.org].<br>It came in through Adobe Acrobar Reader 8, attached itself to winlogon.exe, and is impossible to remove unless you boot the computer off a book disc like BartPE and remotely manipulate the system's registry to remove it, Heisenberg-style.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only trojan horse software infection I ever got was vectored through Adobe Acrobat Reader JavaScript.It was a form of the Vundo trojan horse http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vundo [ wikipedia.org ] .It came in through Adobe Acrobar Reader 8 , attached itself to winlogon.exe , and is impossible to remove unless you boot the computer off a book disc like BartPE and remotely manipulate the system 's registry to remove it , Heisenberg-style .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only trojan horse software infection I ever got was vectored through Adobe Acrobat Reader JavaScript.It was a form of the Vundo trojan horse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vundo [wikipedia.org].It came in through Adobe Acrobar Reader 8, attached itself to winlogon.exe, and is impossible to remove unless you boot the computer off a book disc like BartPE and remotely manipulate the system's registry to remove it, Heisenberg-style.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1262716320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct.  This whole problem stems from this awful idea that PDF should be more than what made it popular.  Its purpose is to make sure a document looks the same for everyone, regardless of a person's installed fonts or default margins, etc.</p><p>In a struggle to monetize the PDF format and maintain relevance Adobe keeps adding all kinds of bullshit feature bloat that doesn't catch on, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT.  Take form submission.  How many PDF forms have you seen in the wild?  I haven't seen more than two in the last ten years.  Adobe isn't about to give this up though.  They've committed to these BS features, they're not going away now regardless of how irrelevant or dangerous they are.</p><p>Look into a good alternative reader.  Adobe is not a customer-centric company.  It never has been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct .
This whole problem stems from this awful idea that PDF should be more than what made it popular .
Its purpose is to make sure a document looks the same for everyone , regardless of a person 's installed fonts or default margins , etc.In a struggle to monetize the PDF format and maintain relevance Adobe keeps adding all kinds of bullshit feature bloat that does n't catch on , BECAUSE WE DO N'T WANT IT .
Take form submission .
How many PDF forms have you seen in the wild ?
I have n't seen more than two in the last ten years .
Adobe is n't about to give this up though .
They 've committed to these BS features , they 're not going away now regardless of how irrelevant or dangerous they are.Look into a good alternative reader .
Adobe is not a customer-centric company .
It never has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct.
This whole problem stems from this awful idea that PDF should be more than what made it popular.
Its purpose is to make sure a document looks the same for everyone, regardless of a person's installed fonts or default margins, etc.In a struggle to monetize the PDF format and maintain relevance Adobe keeps adding all kinds of bullshit feature bloat that doesn't catch on, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT.
Take form submission.
How many PDF forms have you seen in the wild?
I haven't seen more than two in the last ten years.
Adobe isn't about to give this up though.
They've committed to these BS features, they're not going away now regardless of how irrelevant or dangerous they are.Look into a good alternative reader.
Adobe is not a customer-centric company.
It never has been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660332</id>
	<title>Re:PDF Javascript vs WWW Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262685000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Either that, or if they're using their own, why not just remove anything that involves external data streams (files, network connectivity, etc)?  It sounds like all they really need it for is input validation and as glue for embedded Flash elements.</p><p>Of course, they probably also use it to manage all their UI elements, write form data back to another PDF, link elements in an "intelligent" manner, enforce DRM, format the hard drive, drop botnet engines....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Either that , or if they 're using their own , why not just remove anything that involves external data streams ( files , network connectivity , etc ) ?
It sounds like all they really need it for is input validation and as glue for embedded Flash elements.Of course , they probably also use it to manage all their UI elements , write form data back to another PDF , link elements in an " intelligent " manner , enforce DRM , format the hard drive , drop botnet engines... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Either that, or if they're using their own, why not just remove anything that involves external data streams (files, network connectivity, etc)?
It sounds like all they really need it for is input validation and as glue for embedded Flash elements.Of course, they probably also use it to manage all their UI elements, write form data back to another PDF, link elements in an "intelligent" manner, enforce DRM, format the hard drive, drop botnet engines....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656896</id>
	<title>No, not a good idea at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does a product called "Reader" have to process user input?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does a product called " Reader " have to process user input ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does a product called "Reader" have to process user input?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657290</id>
	<title>Re:Why not html forms?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262716200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes small organizations don't have the infrastructure to put every single form online, it takes a developer and costs money. I recently had to fill out a bunch of forms, and there was no way to do it online.  For these cases, it's a godsend to be able to type right into the PDF, save it, and print it out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes small organizations do n't have the infrastructure to put every single form online , it takes a developer and costs money .
I recently had to fill out a bunch of forms , and there was no way to do it online .
For these cases , it 's a godsend to be able to type right into the PDF , save it , and print it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes small organizations don't have the infrastructure to put every single form online, it takes a developer and costs money.
I recently had to fill out a bunch of forms, and there was no way to do it online.
For these cases, it's a godsend to be able to type right into the PDF, save it, and print it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657682</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1262717460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"PDFs full of x86 virtual machines, complete with embedded video documentation, to one another..."</p></div><p>Can you imagine the chaos that would bring? "Here's your presentation on the XYZ effort", let'er rip and a Pandora's box of digital mayhem starts to eat away at your corp's lan...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" PDFs full of x86 virtual machines , complete with embedded video documentation , to one another... " Can you imagine the chaos that would bring ?
" Here 's your presentation on the XYZ effort " , let'er rip and a Pandora 's box of digital mayhem starts to eat away at your corp 's lan.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"PDFs full of x86 virtual machines, complete with embedded video documentation, to one another..."Can you imagine the chaos that would bring?
"Here's your presentation on the XYZ effort", let'er rip and a Pandora's box of digital mayhem starts to eat away at your corp's lan...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30663292</id>
	<title>Re:Keep your JS but...</title>
	<author>teridon</author>
	<datestamp>1262698020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can use the Adobe Javascript Blacklist Framework to block the vulnerable function completely, so that no matter what the (non-admin) user does, they cannot execute the Javascript.  They still get prompted about the Javascript, but it won't execute.</p><p>More information about mitigating the vulnerability using this method is<br>here:</p><p><a href="http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/532/cpsid\_53237.html" title="adobe.com">http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/532/cpsid\_53237.html</a> [adobe.com]</p><p>More general information about the framework is here:</p><p><a href="http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/504/cpsid\_50431.html" title="adobe.com">http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/504/cpsid\_50431.html</a> [adobe.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use the Adobe Javascript Blacklist Framework to block the vulnerable function completely , so that no matter what the ( non-admin ) user does , they can not execute the Javascript .
They still get prompted about the Javascript , but it wo n't execute.More information about mitigating the vulnerability using this method ishere : http : //kb2.adobe.com/cps/532/cpsid \ _53237.html [ adobe.com ] More general information about the framework is here : http : //kb2.adobe.com/cps/504/cpsid \ _50431.html [ adobe.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use the Adobe Javascript Blacklist Framework to block the vulnerable function completely, so that no matter what the (non-admin) user does, they cannot execute the Javascript.
They still get prompted about the Javascript, but it won't execute.More information about mitigating the vulnerability using this method ishere:http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/532/cpsid\_53237.html [adobe.com]More general information about the framework is here:http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/504/cpsid\_50431.html [adobe.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658116</id>
	<title>Re:PDF has forms before Javascript</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1262718960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A PDF "form" is just a macro of content stream commands. It has nothing to do with a "Form" in the sense of a document with fields that are filled in. And if you're thinking of FDF, that's a different issue entirely. FDF represents form data which will be composed by software on top of a form -- what we're talking about here are user-filled forms, submitted from the reader. THAT functionality is almost entirely implemented in JavaScript.</p><p>PostScript has nothing to do with PDF either. The content stream format of PDF was designed to map onto PostScript, but the reverse is not true. PDF readers have no PostScript processing abilities, and Adobe actively discourages the use of PostScript-specific features of PDF (which, sadly, still exist in limited form).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A PDF " form " is just a macro of content stream commands .
It has nothing to do with a " Form " in the sense of a document with fields that are filled in .
And if you 're thinking of FDF , that 's a different issue entirely .
FDF represents form data which will be composed by software on top of a form -- what we 're talking about here are user-filled forms , submitted from the reader .
THAT functionality is almost entirely implemented in JavaScript.PostScript has nothing to do with PDF either .
The content stream format of PDF was designed to map onto PostScript , but the reverse is not true .
PDF readers have no PostScript processing abilities , and Adobe actively discourages the use of PostScript-specific features of PDF ( which , sadly , still exist in limited form ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A PDF "form" is just a macro of content stream commands.
It has nothing to do with a "Form" in the sense of a document with fields that are filled in.
And if you're thinking of FDF, that's a different issue entirely.
FDF represents form data which will be composed by software on top of a form -- what we're talking about here are user-filled forms, submitted from the reader.
THAT functionality is almost entirely implemented in JavaScript.PostScript has nothing to do with PDF either.
The content stream format of PDF was designed to map onto PostScript, but the reverse is not true.
PDF readers have no PostScript processing abilities, and Adobe actively discourages the use of PostScript-specific features of PDF (which, sadly, still exist in limited form).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658410</id>
	<title>Devil's advocate for Javascript</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1262720280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually used Javascript in Adobe Acrobat a few years back. As part of a workflow process we were regularly bundling sets of PDFs together into one large PDF. This included a title page and a table of contents (talking about a printable one, not bookmarks.) So I futzed around with the Javascript and came up with a way to have the person creating the one big PDF to:<br> <br>
- open a blank Title/TOC PDF<br>
- click a checkbox to unhide the form elements.<br>
- enter a title into a field, which appeared on both the title page and the page headers<br>
- check off which documents were being included in the PDF, which then showed those lines in the TOC. The chapter numbering e.g. 1), 2), 3) etc. also changed to match.<br>
- click the checkbox again to hide the form elements, leaving just the printable title and TOC portions.<br>
- save as a new copy, then bundle it with the other documents.<br> <br>
Pretty slick IMHO. It saved the users from having to waste time opening Word to create a new Title/TOC page every time.<br>
But that being said, what happened in the PDF stayed in the PDF. It didn't have to connect to the web, etc. <br>
This is of course the classic reason for bloatware. The feature that's unbelievably-useful-couldn't-do-my-work-without-it for 2\% of the users is completely worthless to the other 98\%, and we all belong to at least one group of 2\%.<br>
Adobe also has the problem of full Adobe Acrobat Pro vs. Acrobat Reader. Any changes made to a PDF in Acrobat Pro have to be compatible within Acrobat Reader e.g. if I highlight text in Pro and save the PDF I expect everyone who opens the PDF later on to see it too. Otherwise they could simply make all the additional features (including Javascript support) plug-ins and be done with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually used Javascript in Adobe Acrobat a few years back .
As part of a workflow process we were regularly bundling sets of PDFs together into one large PDF .
This included a title page and a table of contents ( talking about a printable one , not bookmarks .
) So I futzed around with the Javascript and came up with a way to have the person creating the one big PDF to : - open a blank Title/TOC PDF - click a checkbox to unhide the form elements .
- enter a title into a field , which appeared on both the title page and the page headers - check off which documents were being included in the PDF , which then showed those lines in the TOC .
The chapter numbering e.g .
1 ) , 2 ) , 3 ) etc .
also changed to match .
- click the checkbox again to hide the form elements , leaving just the printable title and TOC portions .
- save as a new copy , then bundle it with the other documents .
Pretty slick IMHO .
It saved the users from having to waste time opening Word to create a new Title/TOC page every time .
But that being said , what happened in the PDF stayed in the PDF .
It did n't have to connect to the web , etc .
This is of course the classic reason for bloatware .
The feature that 's unbelievably-useful-could n't-do-my-work-without-it for 2 \ % of the users is completely worthless to the other 98 \ % , and we all belong to at least one group of 2 \ % .
Adobe also has the problem of full Adobe Acrobat Pro vs. Acrobat Reader .
Any changes made to a PDF in Acrobat Pro have to be compatible within Acrobat Reader e.g .
if I highlight text in Pro and save the PDF I expect everyone who opens the PDF later on to see it too .
Otherwise they could simply make all the additional features ( including Javascript support ) plug-ins and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually used Javascript in Adobe Acrobat a few years back.
As part of a workflow process we were regularly bundling sets of PDFs together into one large PDF.
This included a title page and a table of contents (talking about a printable one, not bookmarks.
) So I futzed around with the Javascript and came up with a way to have the person creating the one big PDF to: 
- open a blank Title/TOC PDF
- click a checkbox to unhide the form elements.
- enter a title into a field, which appeared on both the title page and the page headers
- check off which documents were being included in the PDF, which then showed those lines in the TOC.
The chapter numbering e.g.
1), 2), 3) etc.
also changed to match.
- click the checkbox again to hide the form elements, leaving just the printable title and TOC portions.
- save as a new copy, then bundle it with the other documents.
Pretty slick IMHO.
It saved the users from having to waste time opening Word to create a new Title/TOC page every time.
But that being said, what happened in the PDF stayed in the PDF.
It didn't have to connect to the web, etc.
This is of course the classic reason for bloatware.
The feature that's unbelievably-useful-couldn't-do-my-work-without-it for 2\% of the users is completely worthless to the other 98\%, and we all belong to at least one group of 2\%.
Adobe also has the problem of full Adobe Acrobat Pro vs. Acrobat Reader.
Any changes made to a PDF in Acrobat Pro have to be compatible within Acrobat Reader e.g.
if I highlight text in Pro and save the PDF I expect everyone who opens the PDF later on to see it too.
Otherwise they could simply make all the additional features (including Javascript support) plug-ins and be done with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659278</id>
	<title>Re:How difficult is it to remove Adobe Reader?</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1262724000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DoD factotums would lose their mind without pdf forms. The alternative is some microsoft crap, them are worse. Anyhow, they are handy except for one thing, some forms are set up in such a way that you cannot save them; you can print them though...sort of defeats the purpose. I suspect the rest of the fed. gov. is similarly encased in this stupid behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DoD factotums would lose their mind without pdf forms .
The alternative is some microsoft crap , them are worse .
Anyhow , they are handy except for one thing , some forms are set up in such a way that you can not save them ; you can print them though...sort of defeats the purpose .
I suspect the rest of the fed .
gov. is similarly encased in this stupid behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DoD factotums would lose their mind without pdf forms.
The alternative is some microsoft crap, them are worse.
Anyhow, they are handy except for one thing, some forms are set up in such a way that you cannot save them; you can print them though...sort of defeats the purpose.
I suspect the rest of the fed.
gov. is similarly encased in this stupid behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659954</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1262683800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TSA uses PDF forms for customs and shipping.  The IRS uses them for tax forms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TSA uses PDF forms for customs and shipping .
The IRS uses them for tax forms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TSA uses PDF forms for customs and shipping.
The IRS uses them for tax forms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30664256</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>antic</author>
	<datestamp>1262703540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recently disabled JavaScript in Acrobat.</p><p>A day before that, I visited Pirate Bay for a fraction of a second before noticing something odd (in the statusbar) and shutting my browser. I use Firefox (up to date) on XP (up to date). I didn't click to approve anything during the process of visiting PB and getting infected. There was a rootkit, malware, etc. Took me a few attempts to get rid of it and it wasted a lot of time. Obviously venturing out into the dodgier regions of the net has its risks, but the last time this happened to me, I'd visited the site of an NBA team. Each time, I believe the cause was a rogue PDF or Flash piece possibly pushed through an ad network.</p><p>Very frustrating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently disabled JavaScript in Acrobat.A day before that , I visited Pirate Bay for a fraction of a second before noticing something odd ( in the statusbar ) and shutting my browser .
I use Firefox ( up to date ) on XP ( up to date ) .
I did n't click to approve anything during the process of visiting PB and getting infected .
There was a rootkit , malware , etc .
Took me a few attempts to get rid of it and it wasted a lot of time .
Obviously venturing out into the dodgier regions of the net has its risks , but the last time this happened to me , I 'd visited the site of an NBA team .
Each time , I believe the cause was a rogue PDF or Flash piece possibly pushed through an ad network.Very frustrating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently disabled JavaScript in Acrobat.A day before that, I visited Pirate Bay for a fraction of a second before noticing something odd (in the statusbar) and shutting my browser.
I use Firefox (up to date) on XP (up to date).
I didn't click to approve anything during the process of visiting PB and getting infected.
There was a rootkit, malware, etc.
Took me a few attempts to get rid of it and it wasted a lot of time.
Obviously venturing out into the dodgier regions of the net has its risks, but the last time this happened to me, I'd visited the site of an NBA team.
Each time, I believe the cause was a rogue PDF or Flash piece possibly pushed through an ad network.Very frustrating.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658886</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Quarters</author>
	<datestamp>1262722140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Displaying documents on screen in a device independent way isn't the original intended goal of PDF. PDF was designed to get around the issue of offset press operators not having the correct fonts, introducing errors into printed page layouts due to slight differences in page rendering of *.ps files between different seperation software packages, etc... PDF was designed to make digital prepress operations work in a device independent manner. The idea that such standardization would help for on screen rendering (especially in early 90's, pre-CSS days of HTML) came later.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Displaying documents on screen in a device independent way is n't the original intended goal of PDF .
PDF was designed to get around the issue of offset press operators not having the correct fonts , introducing errors into printed page layouts due to slight differences in page rendering of * .ps files between different seperation software packages , etc... PDF was designed to make digital prepress operations work in a device independent manner .
The idea that such standardization would help for on screen rendering ( especially in early 90 's , pre-CSS days of HTML ) came later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Displaying documents on screen in a device independent way isn't the original intended goal of PDF.
PDF was designed to get around the issue of offset press operators not having the correct fonts, introducing errors into printed page layouts due to slight differences in page rendering of *.ps files between different seperation software packages, etc... PDF was designed to make digital prepress operations work in a device independent manner.
The idea that such standardization would help for on screen rendering (especially in early 90's, pre-CSS days of HTML) came later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964</id>
	<title>Why not html forms?</title>
	<author>jack2000</author>
	<datestamp>1262715060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can anyone tell me WHY people want to fill forms inside PDFs? What am i missing here? We already have the technology to fill forms, what do adobe want to achieve with this? To me it smells like another CEO type of decision and desire for everything to be centralized.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone tell me WHY people want to fill forms inside PDFs ?
What am i missing here ?
We already have the technology to fill forms , what do adobe want to achieve with this ?
To me it smells like another CEO type of decision and desire for everything to be centralized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone tell me WHY people want to fill forms inside PDFs?
What am i missing here?
We already have the technology to fill forms, what do adobe want to achieve with this?
To me it smells like another CEO type of decision and desire for everything to be centralized.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659842</id>
	<title>Re:No, not a good idea at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262683440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want a dumb reader, my I suggest <a href="http://blog.kowalczyk.info/software/sumatrapdf/index.html" title="kowalczyk.info" rel="nofollow">Sumatra PDF</a> [kowalczyk.info].<br>It's the best one I've found yet.</p><p>Or check out the <a href="http://alternativeto.net/desktop/adobe-reader/" title="alternativeto.net" rel="nofollow">Alternativeto.net page</a> [alternativeto.net] for Acrobat and find your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want a dumb reader , my I suggest Sumatra PDF [ kowalczyk.info ] .It 's the best one I 've found yet.Or check out the Alternativeto.net page [ alternativeto.net ] for Acrobat and find your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want a dumb reader, my I suggest Sumatra PDF [kowalczyk.info].It's the best one I've found yet.Or check out the Alternativeto.net page [alternativeto.net] for Acrobat and find your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30663390</id>
	<title>Re:Why not html forms?</title>
	<author>Ansoni-San</author>
	<datestamp>1262698560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You sound like a back-end programmer that is bitter his crappy HTML table-generator doesn't cut it anymore.<br> <br>1. It's W3C not WC3.<br>2. Why should a non-geek care about W3C standards? They can still code in any broken HTML they feel like if the browser displays it properly. The only reason they'd care is if they're trying to pass it off as professional or paid work. In which case they should work to the quality their client requires or stop lying about their skills<br> <br> <b>All</b> UI programming is complicated and tricky, this is well known. As languages become more and more abstracted from the nitty-gritty details of interacting with the OS, they become more and more focused on abstract concepts such as objects and their interactions. HTML defines objects (nodes, their attributes, types), CSS and JS define how they interact. If you are so narrow-minded in regards to the tools you use to define or implement your solution then I'm afraid you don't have a very bright future in this field.<br> <br>Try your hand at some real UI programming for local applications for a while and you'll realise that HTML/CSS/JS is really the UI toolkit you wish you always had. See how long it takes you to write a UI engine to achieve custom behaviour it would have taken an hour or two to achieve using HTML/CSS/JS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like a back-end programmer that is bitter his crappy HTML table-generator does n't cut it anymore .
1. It 's W3C not WC3.2 .
Why should a non-geek care about W3C standards ?
They can still code in any broken HTML they feel like if the browser displays it properly .
The only reason they 'd care is if they 're trying to pass it off as professional or paid work .
In which case they should work to the quality their client requires or stop lying about their skills All UI programming is complicated and tricky , this is well known .
As languages become more and more abstracted from the nitty-gritty details of interacting with the OS , they become more and more focused on abstract concepts such as objects and their interactions .
HTML defines objects ( nodes , their attributes , types ) , CSS and JS define how they interact .
If you are so narrow-minded in regards to the tools you use to define or implement your solution then I 'm afraid you do n't have a very bright future in this field .
Try your hand at some real UI programming for local applications for a while and you 'll realise that HTML/CSS/JS is really the UI toolkit you wish you always had .
See how long it takes you to write a UI engine to achieve custom behaviour it would have taken an hour or two to achieve using HTML/CSS/JS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like a back-end programmer that is bitter his crappy HTML table-generator doesn't cut it anymore.
1. It's W3C not WC3.2.
Why should a non-geek care about W3C standards?
They can still code in any broken HTML they feel like if the browser displays it properly.
The only reason they'd care is if they're trying to pass it off as professional or paid work.
In which case they should work to the quality their client requires or stop lying about their skills  All UI programming is complicated and tricky, this is well known.
As languages become more and more abstracted from the nitty-gritty details of interacting with the OS, they become more and more focused on abstract concepts such as objects and their interactions.
HTML defines objects (nodes, their attributes, types), CSS and JS define how they interact.
If you are so narrow-minded in regards to the tools you use to define or implement your solution then I'm afraid you don't have a very bright future in this field.
Try your hand at some real UI programming for local applications for a while and you'll realise that HTML/CSS/JS is really the UI toolkit you wish you always had.
See how long it takes you to write a UI engine to achieve custom behaviour it would have taken an hour or two to achieve using HTML/CSS/JS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658876</id>
	<title>So what I'm hearing is...</title>
	<author>myddrn</author>
	<datestamp>1262722080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Security is hard!  Lets go shopping!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security is hard !
Lets go shopping !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security is hard!
Lets go shopping!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656894</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Well, gee -- how about creating the equivalent of noscript for Adobe, then?</i></p><p>Noscript was (I don't care if it is now, once is enough) malware and adware. I don't want that again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , gee -- how about creating the equivalent of noscript for Adobe , then ? Noscript was ( I do n't care if it is now , once is enough ) malware and adware .
I do n't want that again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, gee -- how about creating the equivalent of noscript for Adobe, then?Noscript was (I don't care if it is now, once is enough) malware and adware.
I don't want that again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434</id>
	<title>PDF Javascript vs WWW Javascript</title>
	<author>gehrehmee</author>
	<datestamp>1262716620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have Javascript in web browsers, and it's rare to see vulnerabilities this rare.</p><p>What's the difference? Is Adobe just not sandboxing Javascript code properly? I've never really used Adobe's products for this... but what's to stop them from just using an established javascript implementation like that used in Firefox or Webkit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have Javascript in web browsers , and it 's rare to see vulnerabilities this rare.What 's the difference ?
Is Adobe just not sandboxing Javascript code properly ?
I 've never really used Adobe 's products for this... but what 's to stop them from just using an established javascript implementation like that used in Firefox or Webkit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have Javascript in web browsers, and it's rare to see vulnerabilities this rare.What's the difference?
Is Adobe just not sandboxing Javascript code properly?
I've never really used Adobe's products for this... but what's to stop them from just using an established javascript implementation like that used in Firefox or Webkit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657760</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>GIL\_Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1262717700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen lots of them. One per month at work for SOX compliance (unfortunately the crazy system our company bought uses them). One more just the other day from my kids school district for a form to apply to be in the school's "pathways" program (engineering program in this case). This form didn't even work right. The form field checking worked, but the submit button failed to do its email thing - so we had to print it and carry it in because you can't SAVE it. Another to apply to be a coach for the soccer league (background check info). All of these things use the forms feature with ActionScript/JavaScript. Just because one person isn't required to use them doesn't mean all of us don't have to use them. <br> <br> BTW, I agree that adobe reader is terrible software - but I can't get the school district, the soccer league, or my work to switch...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen lots of them .
One per month at work for SOX compliance ( unfortunately the crazy system our company bought uses them ) .
One more just the other day from my kids school district for a form to apply to be in the school 's " pathways " program ( engineering program in this case ) .
This form did n't even work right .
The form field checking worked , but the submit button failed to do its email thing - so we had to print it and carry it in because you ca n't SAVE it .
Another to apply to be a coach for the soccer league ( background check info ) .
All of these things use the forms feature with ActionScript/JavaScript .
Just because one person is n't required to use them does n't mean all of us do n't have to use them .
BTW , I agree that adobe reader is terrible software - but I ca n't get the school district , the soccer league , or my work to switch.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen lots of them.
One per month at work for SOX compliance (unfortunately the crazy system our company bought uses them).
One more just the other day from my kids school district for a form to apply to be in the school's "pathways" program (engineering program in this case).
This form didn't even work right.
The form field checking worked, but the submit button failed to do its email thing - so we had to print it and carry it in because you can't SAVE it.
Another to apply to be a coach for the soccer league (background check info).
All of these things use the forms feature with ActionScript/JavaScript.
Just because one person isn't required to use them doesn't mean all of us don't have to use them.
BTW, I agree that adobe reader is terrible software - but I can't get the school district, the soccer league, or my work to switch...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657000</id>
	<title>bummer dude</title>
	<author>varmint jerky</author>
	<datestamp>1262715180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no, it's difficult to do the right thing!  In many organizations, they would respond by saying "You're fired!"  Good thing this guy works for Adobe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no , it 's difficult to do the right thing !
In many organizations , they would respond by saying " You 're fired !
" Good thing this guy works for Adobe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no, it's difficult to do the right thing!
In many organizations, they would respond by saying "You're fired!
"  Good thing this guy works for Adobe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656888</id>
	<title>PDF with a form?</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1262714880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Anytime you're working with a PDF where you're entering information, JavaScript is used to do things like verify that the date you entered is the right format</p></div><p>

I really can't remember the last time I saw a PDF that had a form in it that you could submit. Was it 2001? possibly 2003 at the very latest. The idea never caught on, and why would it? you get some minimal HTTP POST support in a proprietary format. To me it would seem more important that you have an up-to-date version of the form you are submitting, rather than having the form's formatting look *exactly* right without loss in formatting which is the whole point of PDF.<br> <br>

JavaShit, forms, DRM in PDF files should all be removed - all they do is make the reading software more bloated</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime you 're working with a PDF where you 're entering information , JavaScript is used to do things like verify that the date you entered is the right format I really ca n't remember the last time I saw a PDF that had a form in it that you could submit .
Was it 2001 ?
possibly 2003 at the very latest .
The idea never caught on , and why would it ?
you get some minimal HTTP POST support in a proprietary format .
To me it would seem more important that you have an up-to-date version of the form you are submitting , rather than having the form 's formatting look * exactly * right without loss in formatting which is the whole point of PDF .
JavaShit , forms , DRM in PDF files should all be removed - all they do is make the reading software more bloated</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime you're working with a PDF where you're entering information, JavaScript is used to do things like verify that the date you entered is the right format

I really can't remember the last time I saw a PDF that had a form in it that you could submit.
Was it 2001?
possibly 2003 at the very latest.
The idea never caught on, and why would it?
you get some minimal HTTP POST support in a proprietary format.
To me it would seem more important that you have an up-to-date version of the form you are submitting, rather than having the form's formatting look *exactly* right without loss in formatting which is the whole point of PDF.
JavaShit, forms, DRM in PDF files should all be removed - all they do is make the reading software more bloated
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657598</id>
	<title>Huh?</title>
	<author>jack2000</author>
	<datestamp>1262717280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Excuse me HOW has WC3 made html so hard to understand? <br>
All things considered it's made it more legible! Consolidating style and content into different parts of the document makes things Very easy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me HOW has WC3 made html so hard to understand ?
All things considered it 's made it more legible !
Consolidating style and content into different parts of the document makes things Very easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me HOW has WC3 made html so hard to understand?
All things considered it's made it more legible!
Consolidating style and content into different parts of the document makes things Very easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657350</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657350</id>
	<title>Re:Why not html forms?</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1262716380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Adobe has made PDFs more accessible while WC3 has made HTML and other web programming less accessible. As a result web programmers get to keep their jobs, which I'm guessing was the point of obfuscating web programming to the point that most non-geeks don't want to deal with it, and non-geeks that need to make forms will go with an Adobe product because it "just works."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe has made PDFs more accessible while WC3 has made HTML and other web programming less accessible .
As a result web programmers get to keep their jobs , which I 'm guessing was the point of obfuscating web programming to the point that most non-geeks do n't want to deal with it , and non-geeks that need to make forms will go with an Adobe product because it " just works .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe has made PDFs more accessible while WC3 has made HTML and other web programming less accessible.
As a result web programmers get to keep their jobs, which I'm guessing was the point of obfuscating web programming to the point that most non-geeks don't want to deal with it, and non-geeks that need to make forms will go with an Adobe product because it "just works.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657186</id>
	<title>JavaScript: the biggest computing fuckup ever.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your proposal doesn't change the fact that JavaScript may still be involved in some way, even when using web forms.</p><p>JavaScript is indisputably the biggest fuckup to ever hit computing. Yes, it's even worse than Microsoft Windows. At least you can choose to avoid Windows, and software from Microsoft. That's just not possible with JavaScript.</p><p>JavaScript has embedded its tentacles into every major web browser, and most minor ones, too. Then just to fuck everyone over one more time, it's the basis for ActionScript, used in Flash. And in this case, it has even lodged itself in a goddamn PDF viewer!</p><p>JavaScript needs to go. It's a pathetic excuse for a scripting language, let alone a full programming language (like many stupid fools seem to use it as today).</p><p>JavaScript has brought performance problems, security holes and shitty programming wherever it has been used. It's a disease that has severely infected the current generation of software developers and software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your proposal does n't change the fact that JavaScript may still be involved in some way , even when using web forms.JavaScript is indisputably the biggest fuckup to ever hit computing .
Yes , it 's even worse than Microsoft Windows .
At least you can choose to avoid Windows , and software from Microsoft .
That 's just not possible with JavaScript.JavaScript has embedded its tentacles into every major web browser , and most minor ones , too .
Then just to fuck everyone over one more time , it 's the basis for ActionScript , used in Flash .
And in this case , it has even lodged itself in a goddamn PDF viewer ! JavaScript needs to go .
It 's a pathetic excuse for a scripting language , let alone a full programming language ( like many stupid fools seem to use it as today ) .JavaScript has brought performance problems , security holes and shitty programming wherever it has been used .
It 's a disease that has severely infected the current generation of software developers and software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your proposal doesn't change the fact that JavaScript may still be involved in some way, even when using web forms.JavaScript is indisputably the biggest fuckup to ever hit computing.
Yes, it's even worse than Microsoft Windows.
At least you can choose to avoid Windows, and software from Microsoft.
That's just not possible with JavaScript.JavaScript has embedded its tentacles into every major web browser, and most minor ones, too.
Then just to fuck everyone over one more time, it's the basis for ActionScript, used in Flash.
And in this case, it has even lodged itself in a goddamn PDF viewer!JavaScript needs to go.
It's a pathetic excuse for a scripting language, let alone a full programming language (like many stupid fools seem to use it as today).JavaScript has brought performance problems, security holes and shitty programming wherever it has been used.
It's a disease that has severely infected the current generation of software developers and software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657574</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1262717160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information? No? Too simple?</p></div><p>Yeah, that was my thought as well.</p><p>The reason I use a PDF is because I want somebody on the other end to see my document the way it is supposed to look.  I don't want to worry about what font they have installed or which version of Word they're running or whatever.  It's the digital equivalent of a printed page.</p><p>I like that you can specify editable areas on a PDF...  So that you can send somebody a form, that they can type on, and then print out or send back to you.  That's nice.</p><p>But that's about the extent of it.</p><p>If I really need to collect live data from a form, I'm not going to use a PDF - I'll just use a web page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not let PDFs only display documents , and rely on web forms for submitting information ?
No ? Too simple ? Yeah , that was my thought as well.The reason I use a PDF is because I want somebody on the other end to see my document the way it is supposed to look .
I do n't want to worry about what font they have installed or which version of Word they 're running or whatever .
It 's the digital equivalent of a printed page.I like that you can specify editable areas on a PDF... So that you can send somebody a form , that they can type on , and then print out or send back to you .
That 's nice.But that 's about the extent of it.If I really need to collect live data from a form , I 'm not going to use a PDF - I 'll just use a web page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information?
No? Too simple?Yeah, that was my thought as well.The reason I use a PDF is because I want somebody on the other end to see my document the way it is supposed to look.
I don't want to worry about what font they have installed or which version of Word they're running or whatever.
It's the digital equivalent of a printed page.I like that you can specify editable areas on a PDF...  So that you can send somebody a form, that they can type on, and then print out or send back to you.
That's nice.But that's about the extent of it.If I really need to collect live data from a form, I'm not going to use a PDF - I'll just use a web page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661174</id>
	<title>Regexen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you need Javascript to verify that fields in a form match certain formats? Wouldn't, say, regexen be able to do the same thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you need Javascript to verify that fields in a form match certain formats ?
Would n't , say , regexen be able to do the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you need Javascript to verify that fields in a form match certain formats?
Wouldn't, say, regexen be able to do the same thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659130</id>
	<title>Re:CS4 Scripting too</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262723400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think anyone has a problem with scripting in the applications.  It's putting scripts into <i>the documents</i> that concerns people.
</p><p>Part of the problem, as I see it, is that computers have an conceptual division between documents and applications.  Applications actively do things when they're run, and so you never want to run an application from an untrusted source.  Documents, on the other hand, are supposed to be passive and not do things on their own.  Opening a document from an unknown source shouldn't be too dangerous, since it shouldn't be able to do anything on its own.  If the viewer installed on your system isn't designed to do anything malicious, then the document shouldn't be able to do anything malicious just by viewing it.
</p><p>Now that distinction isn't entirely clear or necessary, but that's the way all of our desktop/document metaphors were designed.  However, when you allow scripting and macros to be embedded in the document itself, the documents sort of straddle the line between "document" and "application".  Even if it requires some kind of viewer in order to run, a PDF still becomes an executable file, and therefore cannot be trusted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think anyone has a problem with scripting in the applications .
It 's putting scripts into the documents that concerns people .
Part of the problem , as I see it , is that computers have an conceptual division between documents and applications .
Applications actively do things when they 're run , and so you never want to run an application from an untrusted source .
Documents , on the other hand , are supposed to be passive and not do things on their own .
Opening a document from an unknown source should n't be too dangerous , since it should n't be able to do anything on its own .
If the viewer installed on your system is n't designed to do anything malicious , then the document should n't be able to do anything malicious just by viewing it .
Now that distinction is n't entirely clear or necessary , but that 's the way all of our desktop/document metaphors were designed .
However , when you allow scripting and macros to be embedded in the document itself , the documents sort of straddle the line between " document " and " application " .
Even if it requires some kind of viewer in order to run , a PDF still becomes an executable file , and therefore can not be trusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think anyone has a problem with scripting in the applications.
It's putting scripts into the documents that concerns people.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that computers have an conceptual division between documents and applications.
Applications actively do things when they're run, and so you never want to run an application from an untrusted source.
Documents, on the other hand, are supposed to be passive and not do things on their own.
Opening a document from an unknown source shouldn't be too dangerous, since it shouldn't be able to do anything on its own.
If the viewer installed on your system isn't designed to do anything malicious, then the document shouldn't be able to do anything malicious just by viewing it.
Now that distinction isn't entirely clear or necessary, but that's the way all of our desktop/document metaphors were designed.
However, when you allow scripting and macros to be embedded in the document itself, the documents sort of straddle the line between "document" and "application".
Even if it requires some kind of viewer in order to run, a PDF still becomes an executable file, and therefore cannot be trusted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30667080</id>
	<title>Re:CS4 Scripting too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is an entirely different issue. A PDF reader doesn't NEED support for ANY scripting language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is an entirely different issue .
A PDF reader does n't NEED support for ANY scripting language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is an entirely different issue.
A PDF reader doesn't NEED support for ANY scripting language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657200</id>
	<title>PDF has forms before Javascript</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny. The PDF format had forms before Javascript was tacked on. If they needed something to do validation they should have looked in house and used a language they already had like, oh I dunno... Postscript.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny .
The PDF format had forms before Javascript was tacked on .
If they needed something to do validation they should have looked in house and used a language they already had like , oh I dunno... Postscript .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny.
The PDF format had forms before Javascript was tacked on.
If they needed something to do validation they should have looked in house and used a language they already had like, oh I dunno... Postscript.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656878</id>
	<title>What Wasn't Said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation: "We don't want to expend the time, effort, resources and money- especially the money- it would take to replace quick and dirty Javascript code with something more secure and robust."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : " We do n't want to expend the time , effort , resources and money- especially the money- it would take to replace quick and dirty Javascript code with something more secure and robust .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation: "We don't want to expend the time, effort, resources and money- especially the money- it would take to replace quick and dirty Javascript code with something more secure and robust.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658140</id>
	<title>This FP for GNAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262719080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>b7e fun. It used</htmltext>
<tokenext>b7e fun .
It used</tokentext>
<sentencetext>b7e fun.
It used</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659928</id>
	<title>Re:No, not a good idea at all</title>
	<author>idji</author>
	<datestamp>1262683680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>so you can fill in the fields on screen, print out the document, sign it and fax it back to the goverment department or insurance company that you downloaded it from! And so their OCR software can read it without requiring human intervention. That way they don't have to change any internal work processes that they have been using for years - but you the customer downloaded, printed and made it machine readable -saving them work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so you can fill in the fields on screen , print out the document , sign it and fax it back to the goverment department or insurance company that you downloaded it from !
And so their OCR software can read it without requiring human intervention .
That way they do n't have to change any internal work processes that they have been using for years - but you the customer downloaded , printed and made it machine readable -saving them work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so you can fill in the fields on screen, print out the document, sign it and fax it back to the goverment department or insurance company that you downloaded it from!
And so their OCR software can read it without requiring human intervention.
That way they don't have to change any internal work processes that they have been using for years - but you the customer downloaded, printed and made it machine readable -saving them work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</id>
	<title>Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262714640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information? No? Too simple?</p><p>I personally have hated PDF forms for some - as a Mac user, having an OS with great PDF support built-in, but still having to use Adobe's products to use their non-standard (or newly made standard) forms implementation is a headache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not let PDFs only display documents , and rely on web forms for submitting information ?
No ? Too simple ? I personally have hated PDF forms for some - as a Mac user , having an OS with great PDF support built-in , but still having to use Adobe 's products to use their non-standard ( or newly made standard ) forms implementation is a headache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information?
No? Too simple?I personally have hated PDF forms for some - as a Mac user, having an OS with great PDF support built-in, but still having to use Adobe's products to use their non-standard (or newly made standard) forms implementation is a headache.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657176</id>
	<title>Envy</title>
	<author>psbrogna</author>
	<datestamp>1262715840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish I was in a position where I didn't have to fix my strategic mistakes. It sure would be a nice a nice world if we didn't have to make mistakes and could call anything difficult a "non-starter."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I was in a position where I did n't have to fix my strategic mistakes .
It sure would be a nice a nice world if we did n't have to make mistakes and could call anything difficult a " non-starter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I was in a position where I didn't have to fix my strategic mistakes.
It sure would be a nice a nice world if we didn't have to make mistakes and could call anything difficult a "non-starter.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658384</id>
	<title>Because the alternative is impossible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262720100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript default = OFF</p><p>"This PDF file uses JavaScript, which can sometimes be a security risk.  Do you want to enable JavaScript support for this document in order to view it?"  &lt;YES&gt;  &lt;NO&gt;</p><p>Or the more sophisticated:</p><p>"This PDF file is a form that uses JavaScript for some of its function.  Do you want to enable JavaScript support for this document?"</p><p>Sure, this guy is correct to defend support for JavaScript.  But I can't think of any legitimate reason for a person interested in security to defend the decision to have it <i>on by default</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript default = OFF " This PDF file uses JavaScript , which can sometimes be a security risk .
Do you want to enable JavaScript support for this document in order to view it ?
" Or the more sophisticated : " This PDF file is a form that uses JavaScript for some of its function .
Do you want to enable JavaScript support for this document ?
" Sure , this guy is correct to defend support for JavaScript .
But I ca n't think of any legitimate reason for a person interested in security to defend the decision to have it on by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript default = OFF"This PDF file uses JavaScript, which can sometimes be a security risk.
Do you want to enable JavaScript support for this document in order to view it?
"    Or the more sophisticated:"This PDF file is a form that uses JavaScript for some of its function.
Do you want to enable JavaScript support for this document?
"Sure, this guy is correct to defend support for JavaScript.
But I can't think of any legitimate reason for a person interested in security to defend the decision to have it on by default.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656962</id>
	<title>CS4 Scripting too</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1262715060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know this until recently, but you script most of Adobe's CS products (Photoshop, etc) with JavaScript.</p><p>It's cross platform. The same scripts work on my Mac as they do on a Windows machine.</p><p>I already know it, syntax isn't something foreign and there is a ton websites out there for JavaScript support.</p><p>It makes stuff like making panoramas and HDR panoramas awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know this until recently , but you script most of Adobe 's CS products ( Photoshop , etc ) with JavaScript.It 's cross platform .
The same scripts work on my Mac as they do on a Windows machine.I already know it , syntax is n't something foreign and there is a ton websites out there for JavaScript support.It makes stuff like making panoramas and HDR panoramas awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know this until recently, but you script most of Adobe's CS products (Photoshop, etc) with JavaScript.It's cross platform.
The same scripts work on my Mac as they do on a Windows machine.I already know it, syntax isn't something foreign and there is a ton websites out there for JavaScript support.It makes stuff like making panoramas and HDR panoramas awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657530</id>
	<title>Why JavaScript?</title>
	<author>Kleiba</author>
	<datestamp>1262716920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...or any other programming language for that matter? If the functionality is indeed only needed for checking that form input adheres to a specific format, should not a regular expression mechanism be enough in 99\% of the cases? As in: if you design a form, you'll get the ability to specify a regex for each field and the PDF renderer will check new input against each field's regex. Less powerful, but also less likely to be exploitable, I would assume.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...or any other programming language for that matter ?
If the functionality is indeed only needed for checking that form input adheres to a specific format , should not a regular expression mechanism be enough in 99 \ % of the cases ?
As in : if you design a form , you 'll get the ability to specify a regex for each field and the PDF renderer will check new input against each field 's regex .
Less powerful , but also less likely to be exploitable , I would assume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...or any other programming language for that matter?
If the functionality is indeed only needed for checking that form input adheres to a specific format, should not a regular expression mechanism be enough in 99\% of the cases?
As in: if you design a form, you'll get the ability to specify a regex for each field and the PDF renderer will check new input against each field's regex.
Less powerful, but also less likely to be exploitable, I would assume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656928</id>
	<title>i discovered a new concept today</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262715000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the bloatware partisan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the bloatware partisan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the bloatware partisan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659102</id>
	<title>Problem solved</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1262723220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the solution:</p><p>Use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.PDF for documents WITHOUT javascript, and use a new extension for docs WITH javascript.</p><p>Users/admins can handle what app opens what format on their end, or disallow one format all together.</p><p>Done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the solution : Use .PDF for documents WITHOUT javascript , and use a new extension for docs WITH javascript.Users/admins can handle what app opens what format on their end , or disallow one format all together.Done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the solution:Use .PDF for documents WITHOUT javascript, and use a new extension for docs WITH javascript.Users/admins can handle what app opens what format on their end, or disallow one format all together.Done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30662206</id>
	<title>Re:No, not a good idea at all</title>
	<author>Chester K</author>
	<datestamp>1262692740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the same reason your "web browser" can submit forms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the same reason your " web browser " can submit forms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the same reason your "web browser" can submit forms.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30664660</id>
	<title>JS SUX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262706360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Javascript is EVIL!  All of this validation can be done on the server side in a much more secure manner.  Come to the server side, we have cookies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Javascript is EVIL !
All of this validation can be done on the server side in a much more secure manner .
Come to the server side , we have cookies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Javascript is EVIL!
All of this validation can be done on the server side in a much more secure manner.
Come to the server side, we have cookies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657246</id>
	<title>Market grab turned ugly</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1262716020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's happened is Adobe has tried to retrofit Acrobat with tubes.  They did it with much haste so as to get a foothold in the 'cloud' computing craze.  What we now have is a hastily coded bloated application that's somewhere between IE5 and MS Word 95 in terms of security.  Adobe needs to start over, they f#cked up and need to fix it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's happened is Adobe has tried to retrofit Acrobat with tubes .
They did it with much haste so as to get a foothold in the 'cloud ' computing craze .
What we now have is a hastily coded bloated application that 's somewhere between IE5 and MS Word 95 in terms of security .
Adobe needs to start over , they f # cked up and need to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's happened is Adobe has tried to retrofit Acrobat with tubes.
They did it with much haste so as to get a foothold in the 'cloud' computing craze.
What we now have is a hastily coded bloated application that's somewhere between IE5 and MS Word 95 in terms of security.
Adobe needs to start over, they f#cked up and need to fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657020</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information? No? Too simple?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I propose we make a new read-only document format that's portable between machines. We could call it PRODF. We could also require that any format updates are backwards compatible with previous readers, so that the user doesn't have to update his &amp;\%(*\% reader every month just to be able to read a document (hence the name "portable").</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not let PDFs only display documents , and rely on web forms for submitting information ?
No ? Too simple ?
I propose we make a new read-only document format that 's portable between machines .
We could call it PRODF .
We could also require that any format updates are backwards compatible with previous readers , so that the user does n't have to update his &amp; \ % ( * \ % reader every month just to be able to read a document ( hence the name " portable " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information?
No? Too simple?
I propose we make a new read-only document format that's portable between machines.
We could call it PRODF.
We could also require that any format updates are backwards compatible with previous readers, so that the user doesn't have to update his &amp;\%(*\% reader every month just to be able to read a document (hence the name "portable").
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661554</id>
	<title>Re:Fine, but...</title>
	<author>jonom</author>
	<datestamp>1262689680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His point is sound, but it dodges the real issue:</p><p>1) Most of the time people aren't doing forms submissions.  It's somewhat of an obsolete concept.  We use HTML for that.  We use PDF when we want to print something.</p></div><p>
It's not an obsolete concept - HTML fails if you don't have online access or if you need a wet signature. Sure you can print out the HTML form but it's going to look like crap.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) You can have Javascript that can do form validations without giving it commands like "open this file, write to it, then execute it"  Adobe's Javascript security is stuck in 1998, back in the days of ActiveX controls that could trivially to break out of the sandbox.</p></div><p>Adobe's security specifically doesn't allow you to do those kinds of operations unless you have access to the user's hard drive beforehand for installing trusted functions. Only really useable in a networked office/enterprise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His point is sound , but it dodges the real issue : 1 ) Most of the time people are n't doing forms submissions .
It 's somewhat of an obsolete concept .
We use HTML for that .
We use PDF when we want to print something .
It 's not an obsolete concept - HTML fails if you do n't have online access or if you need a wet signature .
Sure you can print out the HTML form but it 's going to look like crap.2 ) You can have Javascript that can do form validations without giving it commands like " open this file , write to it , then execute it " Adobe 's Javascript security is stuck in 1998 , back in the days of ActiveX controls that could trivially to break out of the sandbox.Adobe 's security specifically does n't allow you to do those kinds of operations unless you have access to the user 's hard drive beforehand for installing trusted functions .
Only really useable in a networked office/enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His point is sound, but it dodges the real issue:1) Most of the time people aren't doing forms submissions.
It's somewhat of an obsolete concept.
We use HTML for that.
We use PDF when we want to print something.
It's not an obsolete concept - HTML fails if you don't have online access or if you need a wet signature.
Sure you can print out the HTML form but it's going to look like crap.2) You can have Javascript that can do form validations without giving it commands like "open this file, write to it, then execute it"  Adobe's Javascript security is stuck in 1998, back in the days of ActiveX controls that could trivially to break out of the sandbox.Adobe's security specifically doesn't allow you to do those kinds of operations unless you have access to the user's hard drive beforehand for installing trusted functions.
Only really useable in a networked office/enterprise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30662170</id>
	<title>So he's telling the world to stop using PDF ...</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1262692620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like he's just done a mea culpa and asked the world to stop using PDFs as a document format.</p><p>He's basically said:  "Our document format is out of control.  We no longer have the ability to keep it secure.  Run for the hills.  Save your women and children if you can.  Treat our product the same way you treat malicious<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.exe's when your browser encounters them.   Whatever you do, don't use it for encoding simple read only documents, it's not meant for that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like he 's just done a mea culpa and asked the world to stop using PDFs as a document format.He 's basically said : " Our document format is out of control .
We no longer have the ability to keep it secure .
Run for the hills .
Save your women and children if you can .
Treat our product the same way you treat malicious .exe 's when your browser encounters them .
Whatever you do , do n't use it for encoding simple read only documents , it 's not meant for that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like he's just done a mea culpa and asked the world to stop using PDFs as a document format.He's basically said:  "Our document format is out of control.
We no longer have the ability to keep it secure.
Run for the hills.
Save your women and children if you can.
Treat our product the same way you treat malicious .exe's when your browser encounters them.
Whatever you do, don't use it for encoding simple read only documents, it's not meant for that.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658092</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1262718900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or, just do away with PDF in favor of a portable document format, like HTML which is supported on far more platforms than PDF, and far better than PDF in every conceivable way.</p><p>As for PDF forms, has anyone ever seen them used properly.  By that I mean made, actually will allow you to input data on them and allow it to be submitted to where it needs to go or printed or something useful?</p><p>I've never seen a PDF form that worked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , just do away with PDF in favor of a portable document format , like HTML which is supported on far more platforms than PDF , and far better than PDF in every conceivable way.As for PDF forms , has anyone ever seen them used properly .
By that I mean made , actually will allow you to input data on them and allow it to be submitted to where it needs to go or printed or something useful ? I 've never seen a PDF form that worked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, just do away with PDF in favor of a portable document format, like HTML which is supported on far more platforms than PDF, and far better than PDF in every conceivable way.As for PDF forms, has anyone ever seen them used properly.
By that I mean made, actually will allow you to input data on them and allow it to be submitted to where it needs to go or printed or something useful?I've never seen a PDF form that worked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your "solution" is only a solution if your business isn't peddling PDF software(not to mention the <i>really</i> expensive backendware that you have to buy from Adobe if you want to "enable your enterprise PDF form workflow" or whatever).<br> <br>

There are well behaved, and standardized, subsets of PDF that are just fine. They know their place, they are a perfectly competent and pretty well supported way of slinging around documents that have to look a certain way. Outside of that, though, is the nightmare realm where Adobe just keeps cramming use cases into PDF, because PDF is what they own. Javascript, embedded Flash video, it's just a matter of time before they announce an alliance with VMware, to "Enable users to deploy entire Rich Enterprise Solution Stacks" just by emailing PDFs full of x86 virtual machines, complete with embedded video documentation, to one another...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your " solution " is only a solution if your business is n't peddling PDF software ( not to mention the really expensive backendware that you have to buy from Adobe if you want to " enable your enterprise PDF form workflow " or whatever ) .
There are well behaved , and standardized , subsets of PDF that are just fine .
They know their place , they are a perfectly competent and pretty well supported way of slinging around documents that have to look a certain way .
Outside of that , though , is the nightmare realm where Adobe just keeps cramming use cases into PDF , because PDF is what they own .
Javascript , embedded Flash video , it 's just a matter of time before they announce an alliance with VMware , to " Enable users to deploy entire Rich Enterprise Solution Stacks " just by emailing PDFs full of x86 virtual machines , complete with embedded video documentation , to one another.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your "solution" is only a solution if your business isn't peddling PDF software(not to mention the really expensive backendware that you have to buy from Adobe if you want to "enable your enterprise PDF form workflow" or whatever).
There are well behaved, and standardized, subsets of PDF that are just fine.
They know their place, they are a perfectly competent and pretty well supported way of slinging around documents that have to look a certain way.
Outside of that, though, is the nightmare realm where Adobe just keeps cramming use cases into PDF, because PDF is what they own.
Javascript, embedded Flash video, it's just a matter of time before they announce an alliance with VMware, to "Enable users to deploy entire Rich Enterprise Solution Stacks" just by emailing PDFs full of x86 virtual machines, complete with embedded video documentation, to one another...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657406</id>
	<title>Re:B-A-L-O-N-E-Y</title>
	<author>Mongoose Disciple</author>
	<datestamp>1262716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... you do know that Java and JavaScript are completely different and essentially unrelated things, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... you do know that Java and JavaScript are completely different and essentially unrelated things , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... you do know that Java and JavaScript are completely different and essentially unrelated things, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661344</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262688960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PDF has been obsolete since the introduction of CSS 1.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PDF has been obsolete since the introduction of CSS 1.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PDF has been obsolete since the introduction of CSS 1.0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658284</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262719620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information? </p></div><p>You are faced with the problem of having to host a file which requires a server and an afternoon setting that all up. Then you have to provide a link to someone, which means they have to open it in a web browser. Which means you'll have to let that server through the firewall/dns, since you've got it all blacklisted to keep employees in line.</p><p>Instead of being able to open it by whatever email client you want, as an attachment, that works across all platforms.</p><p>I don't like them any more than the next guy, but they fill a spot that webforms haven't quite done yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not let PDFs only display documents , and rely on web forms for submitting information ?
You are faced with the problem of having to host a file which requires a server and an afternoon setting that all up .
Then you have to provide a link to someone , which means they have to open it in a web browser .
Which means you 'll have to let that server through the firewall/dns , since you 've got it all blacklisted to keep employees in line.Instead of being able to open it by whatever email client you want , as an attachment , that works across all platforms.I do n't like them any more than the next guy , but they fill a spot that webforms have n't quite done yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not let PDFs only display documents, and rely on web forms for submitting information?
You are faced with the problem of having to host a file which requires a server and an afternoon setting that all up.
Then you have to provide a link to someone, which means they have to open it in a web browser.
Which means you'll have to let that server through the firewall/dns, since you've got it all blacklisted to keep employees in line.Instead of being able to open it by whatever email client you want, as an attachment, that works across all platforms.I don't like them any more than the next guy, but they fill a spot that webforms haven't quite done yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657052</id>
	<title>Stupidity repeats itself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262715360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny, I always turn off Javascript in every new PDF viewer installation and not having it never causes me any problems. This guy is making excuses for something that should never have existed in the first place. Those who don't learn the history of the MS Office macro virus debacle of the 1990s are doomed to repeat it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , I always turn off Javascript in every new PDF viewer installation and not having it never causes me any problems .
This guy is making excuses for something that should never have existed in the first place .
Those who do n't learn the history of the MS Office macro virus debacle of the 1990s are doomed to repeat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, I always turn off Javascript in every new PDF viewer installation and not having it never causes me any problems.
This guy is making excuses for something that should never have existed in the first place.
Those who don't learn the history of the MS Office macro virus debacle of the 1990s are doomed to repeat it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661092</id>
	<title>Re:PDF Javascript vs WWW Javascript</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1262688000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just FYI for next time, there is a way to remove Vundo without a boot disk:</p><p><a href="http://blakeyrat.com/2008/10/how-to-really-get-rid-of-the-vundo-aka-virtumonde-virtumondo-ms-juan/" title="blakeyrat.com">http://blakeyrat.com/2008/10/how-to-really-get-rid-of-the-vundo-aka-virtumonde-virtumondo-ms-juan/</a> [blakeyrat.com]</p><p>Once you've identified the offending DLLs, you can set their file permissions to "Everybody - Deny". When you next boot, they won't be allowed to execute and you can simply delete them. (You do, however, have to power-off your computer without shutting it down, which carries a tiny risk.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just FYI for next time , there is a way to remove Vundo without a boot disk : http : //blakeyrat.com/2008/10/how-to-really-get-rid-of-the-vundo-aka-virtumonde-virtumondo-ms-juan/ [ blakeyrat.com ] Once you 've identified the offending DLLs , you can set their file permissions to " Everybody - Deny " .
When you next boot , they wo n't be allowed to execute and you can simply delete them .
( You do , however , have to power-off your computer without shutting it down , which carries a tiny risk .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just FYI for next time, there is a way to remove Vundo without a boot disk:http://blakeyrat.com/2008/10/how-to-really-get-rid-of-the-vundo-aka-virtumonde-virtumondo-ms-juan/ [blakeyrat.com]Once you've identified the offending DLLs, you can set their file permissions to "Everybody - Deny".
When you next boot, they won't be allowed to execute and you can simply delete them.
(You do, however, have to power-off your computer without shutting it down, which carries a tiny risk.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656994</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1262715180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can turn off javascript in Acrobat Reader.<br> <br>

Every time you load a document with Javascript, you'll be warned that it may not display properly, and asked if you'd like to turn javascript back on.<br> <br>

If you agree, the "on" setting sticks for subsequent documents, until you go into the menu and turn it off again.<br> <br>

Can't you just <i>taste</i> adobe's eagerness to have you turn off javascript?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can turn off javascript in Acrobat Reader .
Every time you load a document with Javascript , you 'll be warned that it may not display properly , and asked if you 'd like to turn javascript back on .
If you agree , the " on " setting sticks for subsequent documents , until you go into the menu and turn it off again .
Ca n't you just taste adobe 's eagerness to have you turn off javascript ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can turn off javascript in Acrobat Reader.
Every time you load a document with Javascript, you'll be warned that it may not display properly, and asked if you'd like to turn javascript back on.
If you agree, the "on" setting sticks for subsequent documents, until you go into the menu and turn it off again.
Can't you just taste adobe's eagerness to have you turn off javascript?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659100</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1262723220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe is trying really hard to be like Microsoft with their embrace and extend mentality.  Just as Microsoft decided it was a good idea to put executable code and objects inside of office documents, Adobe thinks it's a good idea that "portable documents" get hindered by using any PDF software other than Adobe's.  They can't pull out the functionality without crippling their [monopoly] software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe is trying really hard to be like Microsoft with their embrace and extend mentality .
Just as Microsoft decided it was a good idea to put executable code and objects inside of office documents , Adobe thinks it 's a good idea that " portable documents " get hindered by using any PDF software other than Adobe 's .
They ca n't pull out the functionality without crippling their [ monopoly ] software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe is trying really hard to be like Microsoft with their embrace and extend mentality.
Just as Microsoft decided it was a good idea to put executable code and objects inside of office documents, Adobe thinks it's a good idea that "portable documents" get hindered by using any PDF software other than Adobe's.
They can't pull out the functionality without crippling their [monopoly] software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658274</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Rayonic</author>
	<datestamp>1262719620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PDF forms are used when the form needs to be printed in a very specific format, or at least needs to exactly emulate their paper counterparts.  e.g., tax forms, standardized contracts, employee waivers, etc.  Even with stylesheets set up properly, printing out HTML is always an adventure.</p><p>So if an employee needs to, say, update their tax information, they can fill out the form online and submit it (securely) back to the employer.  Then the employer can print it out themselves, file it, or whatever.  Beats mailing around paper or having someone come into the main office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PDF forms are used when the form needs to be printed in a very specific format , or at least needs to exactly emulate their paper counterparts .
e.g. , tax forms , standardized contracts , employee waivers , etc .
Even with stylesheets set up properly , printing out HTML is always an adventure.So if an employee needs to , say , update their tax information , they can fill out the form online and submit it ( securely ) back to the employer .
Then the employer can print it out themselves , file it , or whatever .
Beats mailing around paper or having someone come into the main office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PDF forms are used when the form needs to be printed in a very specific format, or at least needs to exactly emulate their paper counterparts.
e.g., tax forms, standardized contracts, employee waivers, etc.
Even with stylesheets set up properly, printing out HTML is always an adventure.So if an employee needs to, say, update their tax information, they can fill out the form online and submit it (securely) back to the employer.
Then the employer can print it out themselves, file it, or whatever.
Beats mailing around paper or having someone come into the main office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657394</id>
	<title>Re:Why not html forms?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262716500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Offline use.  You can email someone a PDF form or put it on a memory stick, they can then fill it in (or out if they are American) and then use the JavaScript to validate their entries before sending them back.  They don't need Internet access while they are entering the data and they can save a local copy easily.  It's marginally useful, but in 99\% of cases an HTML form would be better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Offline use .
You can email someone a PDF form or put it on a memory stick , they can then fill it in ( or out if they are American ) and then use the JavaScript to validate their entries before sending them back .
They do n't need Internet access while they are entering the data and they can save a local copy easily .
It 's marginally useful , but in 99 \ % of cases an HTML form would be better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Offline use.
You can email someone a PDF form or put it on a memory stick, they can then fill it in (or out if they are American) and then use the JavaScript to validate their entries before sending them back.
They don't need Internet access while they are entering the data and they can save a local copy easily.
It's marginally useful, but in 99\% of cases an HTML form would be better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30666892</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>the\_womble</author>
	<datestamp>1262770500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people creating web forms etc. are paying customers.</p><p>Those of us just reading a lot of PDFs, or generating them using free (as in unpaid, as opposed to speech) software, are not doing anything for Adobe, apart from increasing acceptance of the format, so what we want counts for little.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people creating web forms etc .
are paying customers.Those of us just reading a lot of PDFs , or generating them using free ( as in unpaid , as opposed to speech ) software , are not doing anything for Adobe , apart from increasing acceptance of the format , so what we want counts for little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people creating web forms etc.
are paying customers.Those of us just reading a lot of PDFs, or generating them using free (as in unpaid, as opposed to speech) software, are not doing anything for Adobe, apart from increasing acceptance of the format, so what we want counts for little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657146</id>
	<title>Fine, but...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1262715720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His point is sound, but it dodges the real issue:</p><p>1) Most of the time people aren't doing forms submissions.  It's somewhat of an obsolete concept.  We use HTML for that.  We use PDF when we want to print something.  (Which we do a lot less often than we used to)</p><p>2) You can have Javascript that can do form validations without giving it commands like "open this file, write to it, then execute it"  Adobe's Javascript security is stuck in 1998, back in the days of ActiveX controls that could trivially to break out of the sandbox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His point is sound , but it dodges the real issue : 1 ) Most of the time people are n't doing forms submissions .
It 's somewhat of an obsolete concept .
We use HTML for that .
We use PDF when we want to print something .
( Which we do a lot less often than we used to ) 2 ) You can have Javascript that can do form validations without giving it commands like " open this file , write to it , then execute it " Adobe 's Javascript security is stuck in 1998 , back in the days of ActiveX controls that could trivially to break out of the sandbox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His point is sound, but it dodges the real issue:1) Most of the time people aren't doing forms submissions.
It's somewhat of an obsolete concept.
We use HTML for that.
We use PDF when we want to print something.
(Which we do a lot less often than we used to)2) You can have Javascript that can do form validations without giving it commands like "open this file, write to it, then execute it"  Adobe's Javascript security is stuck in 1998, back in the days of ActiveX controls that could trivially to break out of the sandbox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657420</id>
	<title>Except...</title>
	<author>oglueck</author>
	<datestamp>1262716560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that nobody uses these "I am an electronic form" features anyway. All we want is view and print documents. But then, PostScript did exactly that. Oh wait, PDF is based on PostScript. I never understood why it had to be Adobe and PDF that the world uses today. It could have been (a nice version of) Ghostview and PostScript. Hm, but then nobody could have sold PDF-Creation Add-Ons to MS Word, because you could have used a PS printer driver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that nobody uses these " I am an electronic form " features anyway .
All we want is view and print documents .
But then , PostScript did exactly that .
Oh wait , PDF is based on PostScript .
I never understood why it had to be Adobe and PDF that the world uses today .
It could have been ( a nice version of ) Ghostview and PostScript .
Hm , but then nobody could have sold PDF-Creation Add-Ons to MS Word , because you could have used a PS printer driver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that nobody uses these "I am an electronic form" features anyway.
All we want is view and print documents.
But then, PostScript did exactly that.
Oh wait, PDF is based on PostScript.
I never understood why it had to be Adobe and PDF that the world uses today.
It could have been (a nice version of) Ghostview and PostScript.
Hm, but then nobody could have sold PDF-Creation Add-Ons to MS Word, because you could have used a PS printer driver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657570</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>ristonj</author>
	<datestamp>1262717100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shhhh....you'll give them ideas!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shhhh....you 'll give them ideas !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shhhh....you'll give them ideas!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657648</id>
	<title>Re:Easy but far too simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Eyes! It Burns! It Burns!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Eyes !
It Burns !
It Burns !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Eyes!
It Burns!
It Burns!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657940</id>
	<title>declarative standards-based form validation</title>
	<author>leighklotz</author>
	<datestamp>1262718240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adobe should move away from JavaScript and move to declarative form definition and validation, which carries no risk of code attacks from errant JavaScript.  In fact, there is a standard for validating forms declaratively, called XForms.  It lets you write validation expressions for saying when data is valid, required, readonly, or calculated from other data (i.e. totals), and also lets you assign data types using the widely-deployed XSD type names (integer, URL, string, regexp string, etc).</p><p>XForms is modular enough that it's been incorporated into ODF, and there's no reason other that it can't be used in PDF to define and validate forms, other than that Adobe has a vested interest in maintaining its proprietary technology forms instead.  There are a number of folks who would be quite ready to help Adobe incorporate XForms into PDF.</p><p>There are in-browser JavaScript implementations of XForms (<a href="http://www.agencexml.com/xsltforms" title="agencexml.com">here</a> [agencexml.com], <a href="http://code.google.com/p/ubiquity-xforms/" title="google.com">here</a> [google.com], and <a href="http://www.formfaces.com/" title="formfaces.com">here</a> [formfaces.com]), server side implementations a la GWT (<a href="http://www.orbeon.com/" title="orbeon.com">here</a> [orbeon.com] and <a href="http://chiba.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">here</a> [sourceforge.net]), and mobile implementations (<a href="http://www.picoforms.com/" title="picoforms.com">here</a> [picoforms.com]).</p><p>I've been working with XForms for many years, and find it an excellent solution for deploying rich internet applications; we've switched implementations a few times, and have had to do only minor changes to our applications, so using a standard preserves our investment in stuff already written.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adobe should move away from JavaScript and move to declarative form definition and validation , which carries no risk of code attacks from errant JavaScript .
In fact , there is a standard for validating forms declaratively , called XForms .
It lets you write validation expressions for saying when data is valid , required , readonly , or calculated from other data ( i.e .
totals ) , and also lets you assign data types using the widely-deployed XSD type names ( integer , URL , string , regexp string , etc ) .XForms is modular enough that it 's been incorporated into ODF , and there 's no reason other that it ca n't be used in PDF to define and validate forms , other than that Adobe has a vested interest in maintaining its proprietary technology forms instead .
There are a number of folks who would be quite ready to help Adobe incorporate XForms into PDF.There are in-browser JavaScript implementations of XForms ( here [ agencexml.com ] , here [ google.com ] , and here [ formfaces.com ] ) , server side implementations a la GWT ( here [ orbeon.com ] and here [ sourceforge.net ] ) , and mobile implementations ( here [ picoforms.com ] ) .I 've been working with XForms for many years , and find it an excellent solution for deploying rich internet applications ; we 've switched implementations a few times , and have had to do only minor changes to our applications , so using a standard preserves our investment in stuff already written .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adobe should move away from JavaScript and move to declarative form definition and validation, which carries no risk of code attacks from errant JavaScript.
In fact, there is a standard for validating forms declaratively, called XForms.
It lets you write validation expressions for saying when data is valid, required, readonly, or calculated from other data (i.e.
totals), and also lets you assign data types using the widely-deployed XSD type names (integer, URL, string, regexp string, etc).XForms is modular enough that it's been incorporated into ODF, and there's no reason other that it can't be used in PDF to define and validate forms, other than that Adobe has a vested interest in maintaining its proprietary technology forms instead.
There are a number of folks who would be quite ready to help Adobe incorporate XForms into PDF.There are in-browser JavaScript implementations of XForms (here [agencexml.com], here [google.com], and here [formfaces.com]), server side implementations a la GWT (here [orbeon.com] and here [sourceforge.net]), and mobile implementations (here [picoforms.com]).I've been working with XForms for many years, and find it an excellent solution for deploying rich internet applications; we've switched implementations a few times, and have had to do only minor changes to our applications, so using a standard preserves our investment in stuff already written.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658368</id>
	<title>Re:How difficult is it to remove Adobe Reader?</title>
	<author>Skuld-Chan</author>
	<datestamp>1262720040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(speaking as someone who has worked quite a great deal with implementing Acrobat forms...)</p><p>End users don't need this stuff (it would be cool if IRS Tax forms were intelligent, but that would cut into the profits of a lot of tax prep companies). A lot of enterprises however use this stuff. I would agree its not the best solution in every case, but one thing it was used for frequently was a front end for some other system where they previously printed out, faxed in a paper form and then transcribed it by hand into some mainframe CRM app - well with Acrobat forms you can cut out a lot of that steps - keep the familiar forms, and keep training costs down to boot.</p><p>Livecycle forms is just a development environment like anything else (SAP/Datatel etc) - and if you are used to it - great, if not - use something else.</p><p>I do know - for end users being able to type into a form they previous wrote on was helpful because they knew where everything was and how the form worked. That certainly cut down training time, and calls to help desks.</p><p>And no - no other pdf viewer (even foxit) is compliant enough to actually work within this workflow - its either Reader 8/9 or nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( speaking as someone who has worked quite a great deal with implementing Acrobat forms... ) End users do n't need this stuff ( it would be cool if IRS Tax forms were intelligent , but that would cut into the profits of a lot of tax prep companies ) .
A lot of enterprises however use this stuff .
I would agree its not the best solution in every case , but one thing it was used for frequently was a front end for some other system where they previously printed out , faxed in a paper form and then transcribed it by hand into some mainframe CRM app - well with Acrobat forms you can cut out a lot of that steps - keep the familiar forms , and keep training costs down to boot.Livecycle forms is just a development environment like anything else ( SAP/Datatel etc ) - and if you are used to it - great , if not - use something else.I do know - for end users being able to type into a form they previous wrote on was helpful because they knew where everything was and how the form worked .
That certainly cut down training time , and calls to help desks.And no - no other pdf viewer ( even foxit ) is compliant enough to actually work within this workflow - its either Reader 8/9 or nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(speaking as someone who has worked quite a great deal with implementing Acrobat forms...)End users don't need this stuff (it would be cool if IRS Tax forms were intelligent, but that would cut into the profits of a lot of tax prep companies).
A lot of enterprises however use this stuff.
I would agree its not the best solution in every case, but one thing it was used for frequently was a front end for some other system where they previously printed out, faxed in a paper form and then transcribed it by hand into some mainframe CRM app - well with Acrobat forms you can cut out a lot of that steps - keep the familiar forms, and keep training costs down to boot.Livecycle forms is just a development environment like anything else (SAP/Datatel etc) - and if you are used to it - great, if not - use something else.I do know - for end users being able to type into a form they previous wrote on was helpful because they knew where everything was and how the form worked.
That certainly cut down training time, and calls to help desks.And no - no other pdf viewer (even foxit) is compliant enough to actually work within this workflow - its either Reader 8/9 or nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656836</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661398</id>
	<title>Re:How difficult is it to remove Adobe Reader?</title>
	<author>jonom</author>
	<datestamp>1262689200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I too develop interactive PDF forms using LiveCycle and I'd like to add a few things.<p>
Why PDF vs HTML forms? You don't have to be connected to the internet. Forms can be saved partially completed and be finished later (with Reader Extensions which allow saving, among other things, with Reader).</p><p>
Do you need a signature with that form? HTML fails. With PDF you can print the form out, sign it and send it in - with 2d barcode technology that form can be scanned in on the receiving end and all data retrieved electronically.</p><p>
Why Javascript or any other scripting ability (there's also FormCalc in PDF)? Besides error checking, math and other obvious things - interactivity. I can have the form adapt as it is filled in. Clicked a checkbox that says you're not married and don't have kids? You won't see those kinds of questions later on in the form.</p><p>
This only scratches the surface - with the full suite of LiveCycle server technology you can do some pretty amazing stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I too develop interactive PDF forms using LiveCycle and I 'd like to add a few things .
Why PDF vs HTML forms ?
You do n't have to be connected to the internet .
Forms can be saved partially completed and be finished later ( with Reader Extensions which allow saving , among other things , with Reader ) .
Do you need a signature with that form ?
HTML fails .
With PDF you can print the form out , sign it and send it in - with 2d barcode technology that form can be scanned in on the receiving end and all data retrieved electronically .
Why Javascript or any other scripting ability ( there 's also FormCalc in PDF ) ?
Besides error checking , math and other obvious things - interactivity .
I can have the form adapt as it is filled in .
Clicked a checkbox that says you 're not married and do n't have kids ?
You wo n't see those kinds of questions later on in the form .
This only scratches the surface - with the full suite of LiveCycle server technology you can do some pretty amazing stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I too develop interactive PDF forms using LiveCycle and I'd like to add a few things.
Why PDF vs HTML forms?
You don't have to be connected to the internet.
Forms can be saved partially completed and be finished later (with Reader Extensions which allow saving, among other things, with Reader).
Do you need a signature with that form?
HTML fails.
With PDF you can print the form out, sign it and send it in - with 2d barcode technology that form can be scanned in on the receiving end and all data retrieved electronically.
Why Javascript or any other scripting ability (there's also FormCalc in PDF)?
Besides error checking, math and other obvious things - interactivity.
I can have the form adapt as it is filled in.
Clicked a checkbox that says you're not married and don't have kids?
You won't see those kinds of questions later on in the form.
This only scratches the surface - with the full suite of LiveCycle server technology you can do some pretty amazing stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660448</id>
	<title>Re: vulnerabilities when running Windows</title>
	<author>butlerm</author>
	<datestamp>1262685360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only trojan horse infection I have had in the past decade was due to visting a "security" web site that exploited a Java vulnerability.  I use XP for work, and never run as an administrator anymore, unless I need to install software.  In XP it is fundamentally unsafe.</p><p>I imagine running as limited user all the time seriously reduces the impact of Adobe Reader vulnerabilities like this, among others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only trojan horse infection I have had in the past decade was due to visting a " security " web site that exploited a Java vulnerability .
I use XP for work , and never run as an administrator anymore , unless I need to install software .
In XP it is fundamentally unsafe.I imagine running as limited user all the time seriously reduces the impact of Adobe Reader vulnerabilities like this , among others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only trojan horse infection I have had in the past decade was due to visting a "security" web site that exploited a Java vulnerability.
I use XP for work, and never run as an administrator anymore, unless I need to install software.
In XP it is fundamentally unsafe.I imagine running as limited user all the time seriously reduces the impact of Adobe Reader vulnerabilities like this, among others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30663396</id>
	<title>Aha, and how comes I do not miss it in XPDF?</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1262698620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I do not need it at all? This explanation sounds like complete BS to me. PDF is a display format and active content has no business at all in it. At the same time it is rather obvious that having JavaScript in there is a huge, hige risk and the JavaScript should be implemented with great care and not fall over because of a simple, amateur-level buffer overflow...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I do not need it at all ?
This explanation sounds like complete BS to me .
PDF is a display format and active content has no business at all in it .
At the same time it is rather obvious that having JavaScript in there is a huge , hige risk and the JavaScript should be implemented with great care and not fall over because of a simple , amateur-level buffer overflow.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I do not need it at all?
This explanation sounds like complete BS to me.
PDF is a display format and active content has no business at all in it.
At the same time it is rather obvious that having JavaScript in there is a huge, hige risk and the JavaScript should be implemented with great care and not fall over because of a simple, amateur-level buffer overflow...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656958</id>
	<title>Maybe it's just me</title>
	<author>mandark1967</author>
	<datestamp>1262715060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read it as saying, "It's cheaper to patch vulnerabilities than it is to re-write the code properly in the first place"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read it as saying , " It 's cheaper to patch vulnerabilities than it is to re-write the code properly in the first place "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read it as saying, "It's cheaper to patch vulnerabilities than it is to re-write the code properly in the first place"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657672</id>
	<title>You're and idiot and don't know what you are...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262717460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...talking about.<p><div class="quote"><p>It's a pathetic excuse for a scripting language, let alone a full programming language</p></div><p>This proves it. If you don't understand that Javascript, you'd think that. But, you probably don't think LISP/SCHEME are REAL programming languages either. You probably don't even know WTF "Lambda Calculus" is? Shut the Fuck Up!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...talking about.It 's a pathetic excuse for a scripting language , let alone a full programming languageThis proves it .
If you do n't understand that Javascript , you 'd think that .
But , you probably do n't think LISP/SCHEME are REAL programming languages either .
You probably do n't even know WTF " Lambda Calculus " is ?
Shut the Fuck Up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...talking about.It's a pathetic excuse for a scripting language, let alone a full programming languageThis proves it.
If you don't understand that Javascript, you'd think that.
But, you probably don't think LISP/SCHEME are REAL programming languages either.
You probably don't even know WTF "Lambda Calculus" is?
Shut the Fuck Up!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657186</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30665634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659100
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30663292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30662206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30666892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659130
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30667080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30664256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657146
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30663390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_05_1659221_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30663390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30663292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30667080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657072
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659100
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659582
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30666892
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657570
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661398
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30665634
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30664256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30656896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30659842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30662206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30662170
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_05_1659221.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30657434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30658752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30661092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_05_1659221.30660332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
