<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Foxit Reader: Close, oh so close</title>
	<atom:link href="http://walt.lishost.org/2006/06/foxit-reader-close-oh-so-close/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://walt.lishost.org/2006/06/foxit-reader-close-oh-so-close/</link>
	<description>The library voice of the radical middle.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:23:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: walt</title>
		<link>http://walt.lishost.org/2006/06/foxit-reader-close-oh-so-close/comment-page-1/#comment-18498</link>
		<dc:creator>walt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://walt.lishost.org/?p=323#comment-18498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Foxit has changed since that message. The newer version tests out &quot;close enough for jazz&quot; on my sample documents. I haven&#039;t written anything up because I haven&#039;t done comprehensive tests--but, at least on the samples I&#039;ve done, I don&#039;t believe most people would notice the slightly coarser feel of the type. It&#039;s MUCH better.

On the other hand, Reader 7 is fast enough that I don&#039;t feel the need to switch...(at work I still can&#039;t upgrade to 7, but that problem should go away in a week). Reader 7 appears to be much leaner and cleaner than 6...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Foxit has changed since that message. The newer version tests out &#8220;close enough for jazz&#8221; on my sample documents. I haven&#8217;t written anything up because I haven&#8217;t done comprehensive tests&#8211;but, at least on the samples I&#8217;ve done, I don&#8217;t believe most people would notice the slightly coarser feel of the type. It&#8217;s MUCH better.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Reader 7 is fast enough that I don&#8217;t feel the need to switch&#8230;(at work I still can&#8217;t upgrade to 7, but that problem should go away in a week). Reader 7 appears to be much leaner and cleaner than 6&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Harm ten Napel</title>
		<link>http://walt.lishost.org/2006/06/foxit-reader-close-oh-so-close/comment-page-1/#comment-18490</link>
		<dc:creator>Harm ten Napel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:17:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://walt.lishost.org/?p=323#comment-18490</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Walt,

right on target! I downloaded and installed this high hyped
pdf reader Foxit reader and noticed within minutes it messed
up embedded fonts and that&#039;s what the P in PDF all stands
for: portable. You just have to consider at Adobe they know
a few things about typfonts, you just won&#039;t get functionality
in about 1.5 Mbyte of code like that, but this may be a reminder
to Adobe to make their reader a bit more lean,

greetings,

Harm]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Walt,</p>
<p>right on target! I downloaded and installed this high hyped<br />
pdf reader Foxit reader and noticed within minutes it messed<br />
up embedded fonts and that&#8217;s what the P in PDF all stands<br />
for: portable. You just have to consider at Adobe they know<br />
a few things about typfonts, you just won&#8217;t get functionality<br />
in about 1.5 Mbyte of code like that, but this may be a reminder<br />
to Adobe to make their reader a bit more lean,</p>
<p>greetings,</p>
<p>Harm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
