Why doesn't Pale Moon include a PDF viewer?

[PrivacyExplorer]

Isn't PDF Viewer pretty basic thing in the browser?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

That is a relatively new thing to have in browsers and of course it is a result of the war against plugins. Why don't we have pdf.js in Pale Moon? Because we didn't want to maintain it. While the one in Basilisk is intact, for Pale Moon at the time it had pdf.js the code for it was really immature and prone to security issues and the advantages didn't outweigh the disadvantages. Especially seeing as some fraction just want to download the PDF and there is always plugin based pdf readers hanging about.

Assuming we did want it (I think we still do not) would you be willing to reintegrate it into the browser and committing to maintain that component?

[van p]

When I decided to leave IE/Edge I chose Pale Moon, Waterfox, and Cyberfox partly because they did NOT have a built-in PDF function. All the built-ins I saw had less functionality than Acrobat. Don't think I've ever downloaded Acrobat; it just seemed to be on my computers automatically. Is there some reason I should use something else/not use Acrobat? Thanks.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Nah dood. You're good.

[back2themoon]

Isn't PDF Viewer pretty basic thing in the browser?

Says who? I'd definitively say: not at all. Get a proper PDF reader/editor.

[crimarti]

Isn't PDF Viewer pretty basic thing in the browser?

not for me, I use foxit pdf reader and works great, don't need it to mess with my browser.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Especially seeing as some fraction just want to download the PDF and there is always plugin based pdf readers hanging about.

Says who? I'd definitively say: not at all. Get a proper PDF reader/editor.

not for me, I use foxit pdf reader and works great, don't need it to mess with my browser.

Told you

[Pelican]

In days of old when knights were bold and user's didn't know about PDF plugins, Firefox was the main browser and because it displayed embedded and linked PDF in the browser without any mess or fuss, everyone expected that as the norm. And so it was with other browsers until Chrome came along and Chrome always had a huge problem complying with any standard. Consequently Chrome could not display PDF until they finally created a special plugin for it a decade later. Now that so many are using Chrome, attention has been drawn to PDF plugins.

I don't think people think about, nor should they need to think about whether they should click and save, download and read later. Most people probably just click the link assuming that it will open in a browser like most other web page links.

But it is annoying assuming that and then finding that it won't open in the browser for whatever obscure reason. In my case PM complains that Adobe Reader is out of date, and because I use Acrobat Professional version 8 for the very specific reason that it creates PDF without all the new fangled CSS tricks that are not supported in other readers, I am not updating!

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Well there are also extensions that will do the pdf.js anyway.. So really by NOT bundling pdf.js or some similar implementation it means all possible use cases can be served without compromise. That is what Moonchild means when he says the browser features are balanced and sane. Also, it is your choice how you want to handle it. You know, the reason you are likely using Pale Moon over some mainstream web client.

[therube]

In days of old ... Firefox ... displayed embedded and linked PDF in the browser without any mess or fuss

In days of old, Firefox - alone, would never display any pdf.
It was only if you had Adobe (or Reader, or some other external program) that added a Plugin that your browser was able to utilize that embedding was then an option.

Likewise, Adobe (Reader) was never part of any OS that I am aware.
Possible that some manufacturer, HP or Dell or whomever, include Adobe (Reader [& other programs & utilities]) on their OEM machines, but it was not part of the OS itself. Take a Windows CD, install Windows, no Adobe exists.

[Pelican]

Possible that some manufacturer, HP or Dell or whomever, include Adobe (Reader [& other programs & utilities]) on their OEM machines

Yes Adobe Reader was required and it was included in most new computers. Our computer shop always made sure that it was installed because it saved user support, ie: that user would be back very soon complaining that he couldn't open PDF at all, not even on the desktop..

But it usually was included with on the motherboard drivers disk.

They used to also complain that they couldn't open Word files but was a different story as Word was not free.

[Trupik]

I, for one, absolutely hate all javascript PDF viewers. They have poor performance in terms of speed, quality of rendering and supported standards. Pale Moon not having one is a definite plus, the way I see it.

[Isengrim]

Personally I use (and have grown to like) pdf.js for some of my needs, and I don't mind it being an extension. While I will manually download PDFs that I actually want to keep (and use a separate reader for), having a "built-in" viewer is nice for a "quick and dirty" solution with documents that I don't care that much about. But for me, it's a convenience, not a requirement, of the browser.

[back2themoon]

Excuse my ignorance and I could be wrong, but even when using a plugin to display a pdf, isn't the file actually downloaded somewhere first as well? On a temp folder? I mean, there is no "saving space", right? Or does it all happen automagically "in the cloud"?

I could see myself using a plugin, only if I had to constantly browse and open PDF files online, otherwise saving the occasional click or two would never be worth having to use a sub-par reader (let alone editor, which I guess is not possible without actually saving the file), or even compromising the browser with unnecessary, and potentially unsafe components.

[Moonchild]

Excuse my ignorance and I could be wrong, but even when using a plugin to display a pdf, isn't the file actually downloaded somewhere first as well?

Not necessarily. Plugins often use a "streaming" data model, meaning it will only download the range of data it needs to display (up to and including) the currently-viewed page. Extensions can do the same. Even if downloaded in its entirety, it's still at the add-ons' discretion whether it is saved to disk or loaded to memory only.

[athenian200]

It gives you the flexibility to use the PDF viewer of your choice. There's a PDF viewer called "Reader" built into Windows 10, so you don't really need to download anything to read PDFs if you're on the latest version of Windows. Otherwise, there's always Adobe Reader or Foxit Reader. Adobe Reader has the best compatibility, but Foxit Reader has a more pleasant interface.