<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [poppler] thumbnails</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Because not all renderers are created equal – see the recent discussion on this list about color management... On 5/20/09 12:44 PM, "Shawn Rutledge" <<a href="shawn.t.rutledge@gmail.com">shawn.t.rutledge@gmail.com</a>> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <<a href="lrosenth@adobe.com">lrosenth@adobe.com</a>> wrote: > Because in almost all cases the embedded thumbnails are NOT correct/current renderings of the pages - there has even been talk of deprecating the feature in ISO 32000, since as Albert says, no current reader uses them anyway. I don't see why it shouldn't be more of a priority, both for readers to use them and for editors (not that there are so many editors :-) to keep them up-to-date when a page is changed.  For slow systems it's more important.  Of course I'm thinking about largish scanned documents here; if the document has enough structure, with the tree of links to every section, then I wouldn't miss the thumbnails as much. </BLOCKQUOTE> -- Leonard Rosenthol PDF Standards Architect Adobe Systems Incorporated </BODY> </HTML>