It seems that Firefox is finishing downloading the full document before it is able to render the title page. (Some documents can have early pages rendered before the document’s all fetched, some can’t. Not sure what the technical difference is.) For me where I am, it’s taking 8–15 seconds (quite variable) to load the document and render the first page, or 1.5–3 seconds when cached. The equivalent single-file HTML would render completely in easily under two seconds, even including TLS negotiation when I’m 150ms away, and reload in half a second.
Doing things like jumping to the end takes perhaps 200–400ms to render that page in the PDF, where HTML would be instant (meaning “less than 16ms”).
No way would I access this on my not-overly-powerful phone: Firefox would download the PDF and try to open it in a local app (EBookDroid) instead, so all up I’d expect that’d make it something like 20–30 seconds to load, instead of 1–2. And the text would be minuscule (or only tiny in landscape mode) instead of sanely sized, further disincentive.
Good to know about the PDF patent situation. Do you happen to know how relevant that actually is to PDF tooling? Is it a new version of the file format, or a specification of the existing? (My knowledge of PDF is limited; I know the general concepts and how it’s put together, but not much of the intricate detail or PDF versions.) That is, does this help for existing documents, or are existing documents still stuck in a patent tangle?
On tooling, I just don’t believe PDF tooling is capable of being excellent; it’s a publishing format—a compilation target more than anything else—and by design not conducive to manipulability, where HTML is an authoring format, so you can work with it. Much of the stuff you can do with HTML tooling is by design fundamentally impossible with PDF. They’re very different types of formats.
PDF 2.0 is mostly a cleanup of the existing spec, plus a few minor new features. Adobe’s Public Patent License is similar to AOMedia’s AV1 approach to patents - the patent owners have granted royalty-free usage. However, AV1 also suffers from competing claims of patent ownership from a non-member of AOMedia. I’m not aware of any such claim relating to PDF, and as far as I know no PDF documents have any patent issues, and there are no royalties required to create PDF documents or tools.
I don’t think there’s a conflict between PDF being a publishing format and having great tools for producing that format. The editing can be done to an intermediate application file format (e.g. reStructuredText, or OpenDocument Text, or Microsoft Visio), with the result rendered to PDF.
Oh and that’s unfortunate to hear the mobile Firefox experience is poor. I note there’s a project to add pdf.js support - this is the kind of thing I mean by improving PDF support.
Doing things like jumping to the end takes perhaps 200–400ms to render that page in the PDF, where HTML would be instant (meaning “less than 16ms”).
No way would I access this on my not-overly-powerful phone: Firefox would download the PDF and try to open it in a local app (EBookDroid) instead, so all up I’d expect that’d make it something like 20–30 seconds to load, instead of 1–2. And the text would be minuscule (or only tiny in landscape mode) instead of sanely sized, further disincentive.
Good to know about the PDF patent situation. Do you happen to know how relevant that actually is to PDF tooling? Is it a new version of the file format, or a specification of the existing? (My knowledge of PDF is limited; I know the general concepts and how it’s put together, but not much of the intricate detail or PDF versions.) That is, does this help for existing documents, or are existing documents still stuck in a patent tangle?
On tooling, I just don’t believe PDF tooling is capable of being excellent; it’s a publishing format—a compilation target more than anything else—and by design not conducive to manipulability, where HTML is an authoring format, so you can work with it. Much of the stuff you can do with HTML tooling is by design fundamentally impossible with PDF. They’re very different types of formats.