Talk:PDF

True icon

Which of these icons is more reliable: or ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk • contribs) 13:14, April 19, 2022 (UTC)

File Format: PDF as the size of a country

The section currently states "Page dimensions are not limited by the format itself. However, Adobe Acrobat imposes a limit of 15 million in by 15 million in, or 225 trillion in2 (145,161 km2)" and then cites the PDF specs sheet for version 1.7. However, this seems like a calculated number that is not explicitly stated in the adobe specsheet being stated. It does say (page 350) that there is a max size of 200 x 200 inches. Can someone provide a brief explanation of how this number is arrived at on the article page?

It appears that is has something to do with the fact that each unit is of 1/72 (inches) and there should be a maximum "14,400 by 14,4000 units", but I don't understand how this works out to 15 million. Could someone make the article more transparent about this calculation since it is not explicitly stated in the document being cited? Textaural (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Page 1,128:

"Beginning with PDF 1.6, the size of the default user space unit may be set with the UserUnit entry of the page dictionary. Acrobat 7.0 supports a maximum UserUnit value of 75,000, which gives a maximum page dimension of 15,000,000 inches (14,400 * 75,000 * 1 ⁄ 72). The minimum UserUnit value is 1.0 (the default)." Sockwell162 (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The manual it references is from 2006 and Acrobat is now on version 22. I wonder if there's a newer version. Sockwell162 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I fixed the misrepresentation of the relationship between PS and PDF.

The previous author seems to not have understood the word „tokenized”, and not read the PostScript language reference. Being a programming language, of course PS is tokenized and parsed by the interpreter too, before/during interpretation.
PDF is simply “unrolled” PS so that it is purely declarative, and packaged with its dependencies.
Professor Brailsford of Nottingham university explained this quite well in some Computerphile videos. And he knows/knew the people who developed PDF personally.

I improved the whole section. I also made it a bit more neutral; as it seems much knowledge about PS (especially about the extend of its use case, compared to PDF being just about documents) is almost lost nowadays, leading to a natural underestimation and bias from people who don’t know they don’t know enough to make that decision. I know because I thought like that too until I looked into it. (The language reference is quite nice to read.)
E.g. the fact that PS is based on Forth and Lisp (and frankly nicer than both). Or that SVG is basically the XML version of the PS in PDF. … All information that is almost lost, and would quickly get deleted by such people who don’t know they don’t know … for not being up to the standard … of confirming their beliefs that are based on sources that already lacked those forgotten details about the big picture and ideas back then.
— 109.42.178.164 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Slang connection: "PDF File" as meaning Pedophile

This is obviously an extremely awkward topic to highlight. But Wikipedia has never been about presenting a sanitized set of info packaged for public presentation. It is to present relevant encyclopedic info, regardless of how disturbing it might be.

And censorship is the exact force which has resulted in this new code speak. Platforms like YouTube, Twitter/X, etc have implemented heavy censorship against using the proper word Pedophilia in discussion of this topic. And so a current slang term has happened due to the similarity of "pdf file" to this aberrant psychiatric disorder. Most particularly as a result of recent extreme attention to Jeffrey Epstein and his very long close friendship with Donald Trump, along with Trump's own exact words spoken on The Howard Stern Show.

Many people have turned to using this code terminology. And as the article stands today, there is no hint of that. Now I know that there will be many who will wish to keep it this way. But again, that goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. So it is apparent to me that we have passed the turning point where this article is in need of a new "In Popular Culture" / "Cultural References" section, or whatever is determined to be the best way to include this recent development.

As it is, a reader can go to the PDF disambiguation page where they will find THIS:

PDF (disambiguation):

• PDF file, a euphemism of pedophile

THAT EDIT was done way back in August of 2024 by I am RedoStone. So it is apparent that we are a full year LATE in including that info here in the main article. --Concord19 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'm at least a full year LATE in finding out about the existence of that term, then; this is the first I've ever heard of the use of th phrase "PDF file" as a euphemism of "pedophile". It's not obvious that its absence from this page is the result of anything either than, perhaps, the use of "PDF file" in that fashion not being familiar to people who aren't "extremely online". Perhaps people should "assume good faith" about the absence of any mention of that euphemism here.

As for what should be said here, I'm not sure an "In popular culture" section would be appropriate, as WP:POPCULTURE seems to suggest that "In popular culture" sections are about mentions of the topic of the article in popular culture, not mentions of the title of the article in popular culture in ways having nothing to do with the topic of the article (they're talking about something that's pronounced similarly to "PDF file", not about, for example, PDF files containing child sexual abuse material.

So, if a mention of that use of the term "PDF file" is appropriate here, perhaps a hatnote such as

This page is about the PDF document format; it is not to be confused with the use of the phrase "PDF file" as a euphemism for "pedophile".

or something such as that, would be more appropriate than an "In popular culture" section. Guy Harris (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The page already has a hatnote that, "For other uses", sends the reader to the aforementioned disambiguation page; perhaps that suffices. Guy Harris (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

Re:AGF, I was flagging a potential need for new info to be included. Nowhere was I suggesting nor implying that there was any lack of good faith among any /all contributing editors here.

If it were to be decided that a new section be added, then I would agree that "In popular culture" is not the best choice. I myself would lean toward "Cultural References". There is a fine distinction regarding the terminology. It is more than merely a lifting of the title of this article. It is a deliberate misuse of the tech terminology for the specific purpose of masking.

I did just now find another place this is explained on Wikipedia. Over on the main article 'Algospeak'. And this brings me to your hatnote suggestion:

"This page is about the PDF document format and is not to be confused with the use of the phrase "PDF file" as a euphemism ..."

Both uses actually refer to the document format. The latter, again, being a deliberate misuse. So if that is the approach that is seen to be best, then here I would suggest a slight word tweaking:

"This page is about the technical specifics and history of the PDF document format. For the use of the phrase "PDF file" as a euphemism ..., see Algospeak"

As to the notion that the current hatnote is sufficient, here I would disagree. The reader would have to already know this connection. And so the info would be buried for those who have no familiarity. Say that a person happens across such usage. They have no idea what is meant. And so they turn to Wikipedia. The specific hatnote would provide the info being looked for. Whereas the current hatnote would leave the reader guessing.

Ok, this might be the totality of input that I myself have for now. You, along with other editors might have a solid idea on the best direction from here. --Concord19 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Both uses actually refer to the document format. In what way does "PDF file", when used as a euphemism for "pedophile", refer to the file format, rather than just being a commonly-known phrase (at least among people who deal with PDF documents) that sounds a bit like "pedophile" (to a degree that varies depending on how you pronounce the "e" in "pedo" - short or long "e") and is thus used in place of "pedophile" to avoid filters? Most child sexual abuse material is probably in the form of images and videos, not PDF documents, unless you're talking about written material, in which case that might also be HTML or plain text.

I agree that

This article is about the technical specifics and history of the PDF document format. For the use of the phrase "PDF file" as a euphemism for "pedophile", see Algospeak § Examples.

would be a good hatnote for this, and I think that hatnote would suffice - I don't see anything in the body of the article as being appropriate, any more than I would see "fork is used as a euphemism for fuck'", to give another example from Algospeak § Examples, as appropriate in a "In popular culture" or "Cultural references" section of fork. Guy Harris (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree that would be a good hatnote. It's a niche cant (that I never heard about before either) that doesn't need being specially highlighted among all the other uses listed at PDF (disambiguation). It's completely irrelevant to someone looking for probability density function, for example. Maybe instead of expanding the hatnote here, it would be reasonable to convert the PDF filePDF file redirect to a disambiguation with a {{wikt}} box on top linking to wikt:PDF file where this information really belongs in the first place? – MwGamera (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I had done the article edit, and posted my reply below before seeing that you had piped in.

Over on the Algospeak page, you can see that BOTH terms are used as this code term ('PDF File' and 'PDF'). So that is something to be considered if it gets decided to go in the direction that you are suggesting.

If Probability Density Functions were all over the 2025 news headlines, then I might be inclined to go with your suggestion. But as it is, Epstein is the current hot topic. So is the weight of my change undue? Not the way I see it. Obviously there will be differing opinions on this. My current position is that I see myself to have made plenty of input here. I've fully voiced my personal perspective on all this. So I plan to sit on my hands for a while. But if anyone has any specific question for me, I'd be glad to answer that. --Concord19 (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

If bare "PDF" is used as well then my idea for handling it is sadly insufficient. But given how many different things that never stopped being relevant in 2025 are called by that name, I doubt your judgement that this one is so overwhelmingly more likely to be searched for that it's worth saving one click for the readers looking for specifically that one. I understand your argument that if they saw it as a "PDF file", they might have trouble realizing the "file format" might not be the use they are looking for. But if it's just "PDF" and "file format" makes no sense in context, it's clearly about some "other use", right? So I think a link to the disambig suffices here and it's just the redirect that is a potential source of confusion. There is a separate issue that these readers aren't really looking for the article about pedophilia or even about algospeak, but for purely lexicographic information that doesn't belong in encyclopedia. Of course, they should be pointed to that information, but this seems better done on a non-article page rather than by putting a whole dictionary entry into a hatnote with two irrelevant links. And for that matter, I shall point out that adding a second link to the disambig entry goes against the MOS:DABONE guideline, but I'm not really sure which of the two targets makes more sense. – MwGamera (talk) 08:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok. This exchange appears to have reached a convergence between interested editors (you & me). I have gone ahead and made the change, per your latest, though with minor tweaks:

- A euphemism is not quite the same as a code word. A euphemism is taking a word that is seen as thorny in some way, and then wrapping those thorns with a different word that is easier to swallow. The proverbial Mary Poppins spoonful of sugar. "The dog was put to sleep", instead of "the dog was killed". PDF File, however, is an example of a Code Word. A good comparison would be, say, Lance Armstrong referring to "his favorite author (Edgar Allan) Poe", when what he is actually referring to is EPO. EPO got shortened to 'PO, and then the code substitution happened > Poe.

Another example would be the code words that fighter pilots use over the radio. If their opponent hears them, they speak in these code words so that only the initiated would know what is meant. Like 'Tumbleweed'. It means something very specific, that the pilot has lost their awareness of the situation. There is similarity to a West Texas tumbleweed rolling over and over with no orientation. It is not a euphemism. And if you don't know what the code word means, then you won't know what is being said.

Knowing the above, I'll attempt to explain what I had meant, in answer to your first question. The term 'PDF file' refers to an actual pdf file, in the same way that 'tumbleweed' refers to a tumbleweed. But it is the substitution which creates the coded communication. This may be too fine a distinction for some. Putting my explanation into "This is not a pipe" territory. But it is a distinction nonetheless.

- The second tweak is to link to both articles. Not just the one on Algospeak. A reader who is looking for info might be interested in either the topic in which this term was found, or the manner in which this was used. So links to both. And the article on code words is also linked, as a further branch that one might wish to pursue.

- The final tweak was to keep the original disambig as it was previously presented. If it was useful before, then it will still be useful now.

You or others might want to do further changes. Thank you again. This has been a refreshing exchange on what is obviously an extremely sensitive topic. --Concord19 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with censorship. The purported slang usage has nothing to do with the topic of the article, and therefor does not belong there, any more than "pulling a train" belongs in an article on railroads. If it were a common usage I might suggest {{distinguish}} or a DAB page, but this is the first I've heard of it and it's already on the DAB page. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)