As far as I can see, DT doesn’t support creating and importing Web PDFs. That’s a pity. In my own use, Web PDFs have replaced web archives nearly completely – they are self-contained and easy to share (and I trust the future of the PDF format much more than that of web archives, but that’s just my personal opinion).
For those who don’t know them: Web PDFs retain the original formatting of the page on screen and don’t try to emulate the screen design on a sheet of paper, as print to PDF usually does.
As I said: in the last year I’ve gotten so accustomed to Web PDFs, that I can hardly imagine to do without them. Anyone else who’d like to see this implemented?
Web PDF seems to refer to a conversion process, not a specific PDF format, e.g.:
GoPrint2.com, a leading provider of Internet based file transfer solutions for the print and graphic arts industry, announced today that it has released their Web PDF Engine module, a PDF conversion engine that enables a printer’s customers to convert files into PDF format via the Web.
(bold emphasis added)
I think it’s a regular PDF, the main difference with regard to OS X’s built-in “Print to PDF” being that it retains the on-screen appearance of a web page, instead of “recreating” it on a sheet of paper.
The resulting PDF doesn’t show page breaks and page numbering (as it always does with Print to PDF, if the page is longer than the paper size, even with continuous view). And it always gives you the complete page, whereas Print to PDF sometimes prints only one (paper) page and cuts off the rest.
In short: when you open a Web PDF in Safari or in Preview (or in Together, for that matter), you seem to look at the original web page. I would have liked to attach an example, but the forum software keeps telling me that “the extension .pdf is not allowed”…
Couldn’t be easier. Just by clicking on Together’s PDF bookmarklet in Safari…
This will bring forward Together’s Sorter (it’s called Shelf in Together), let you add all the metadata you wish, and import the page as Web PDF automatically in Together’s database. The very same way you can also import a web archive or simply a bookmark.
Btw, Michael Tsai (the developer of EagleFiler) has announced that he will add support for Web PDFs in EagleFiler in the very near future.
For quite some time, DEVONagent has provided the option of capturing a Web page as either paginated or non-paginated.
Capturing a Web pages as a non-paginated PDF is already available in DEVONthink 2, as a contextual menu option in the browser.
So far, however, several complaints have been received about that, as most users apparently prefer paginated PDF captures.
If one wants to “freeze” and capture a Web page into a DEVONthink database, there are two options: WebArchive and PDF. Each has advantages and disadvantages, compared to each other.
WebArchive advantages: More comprehensive in retention of site content elements than PDF. Extraction of text doesn’t result in copy with hard line endings. Editing of content by deletion of page elements is much easier in a WebArchive than in a PDF. DEVONthink 2 provides a Service to capture a selected portion of a page as WebArchive; PDF allows only a whole-page capture.
WebArchive disadvantages: Not a “universal”, cross-platform standard, as is PDF. Early on, the WebArchive format was buggier than PDF, but has become stable. Tools for marking up and adding notes to WebArchive files are lacking in comparison to those for PDFs that are provided, e.g., in Skim, Preview and Acrobat.
Yes and no. It is a non-paginated PDF, but it’s not “simply” a non paginated PDF, in that
it retains the web page’s original formatting; in contrast, Print to PDF alters the “look” of the page – as does the unpaginated PDF rendering in DT – e.g. a horizontal line with links becomes a vertical list in the PDF, as on this page: http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com – but you’ll find innumerable other examples
it retains all the elements of the original web page – from looking at it, you will note no difference to the original or to a web archive – again in striking contrast with Print to PDF and its non-paginated version in DT.
This is true only with regard to the results of a “normal” Print to PDF; see my remarks above.
True, but I don’t usually edit archived content – ymmv
True, but for capturing partial content of a page I prefer RTFD in most cases
One of two main reasons I prefer web PDFs to web archives.
The second reason I like web PDFs better than web archives.
There was a third gripe I had with web archives: they were not completely self contained, i.e. they had to reconnect to the original site in order to display correctly. Has that changed since?
That’s the difference between a God and a Newbie, you see…
(Maybe it also shows that English isn’t my native language. Next time I’ll try to explain things in Italian or in German; it will be much clearer then – and if still no one understands it, it will be their fault, not mine.)
Anyway, as far as I can see both the DT and Together PDF were almost perfect with DT messing up the top link bar and Together omitting one of the ad elements. I suppose I would give Together a 98% and DT a 96%. I would have to do a bunch of comparisons to really tell but these small differences don’t matter to me but maybe to some people. More important to me is getting the URL printed on the PDF which so far I can only do by printing to DT from Safari.
Maybe somebody could convince me otherwise but I can’t see that changing the DT means for generating PDF’s is all that high a priority. I certainly wouldn’t call the difference between the two “big.”