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