In message <spag4t$bbf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:18:37 on Tue, 14 Dec
2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <spa1qc$mf$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:04 on Tue, 14 Dec 2021,
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sp9l43$ok5$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:37:23 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>> 2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <sp1ut8$f9q$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:35:20 on Sat, 11 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 11/12/2021 07:57, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <7ed7rghlh7i73th432mvlq6h2f1c9nrcaq@4ax.com>, at 20:22:08
>>>>>>>> on Fri, 10 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:07:13 -0000 (UTC),
>>>>>>>>>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:13:07 +0000
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <csk4rghk31luqbj54d6mbr93pge8ssj7jd@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>> 19:09:15 on
>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 17:20:29 +0000, Roland Perry
>>>>>>>>>>>><roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ub84rg1q1cu4uqd19rfbjrsvs6u3u98a1u@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 15:38:03 on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thu, 9 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, my use case seems to be similar to yours (multiple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounts from different sources, several of which are high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volume), so my experience seems to me to be relevant.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But how often do you read a hundred emails a day via Gmail on your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> phone?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not very often, because my job is very office based so I rarely
>>>>>>>>>>>> need to read large numbers of emails while out and about. Most
>>>>>>>>>>>> can wait until I get back. But I don't have any real
>>>>>>>>>>>> difficulty reading them when I do need to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is what Spark claims to be better at, but it's still a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> compromise when the train company is insisting on using 1992
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deliver train tickets, when there are numerous far better
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more modern ways to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Email is, at least, reasonably universal. I'm not a huge fan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> to install a different app for every service I use. Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>TOCs could offer ticket delivery via WhatsApp.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Something less century than PDF, anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PDFs work everywhere. Not everyone has WhatsCrap or similar
>>>>>>>>>>social media nonsense installed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WhatsApp is, like email, SMS and Usenet, a delivery mechanism, not a
>>>>>>>>> file format. Just like email, WhatsApp can be used to deliver a PDF
>>>>>>>>> containing a QR code that forms an e-ticket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pedantically, that would be an m-ticket (a ticket that's a bearer
>>>>>>>> bond stored on your mobile phone); e-tickets are entries on a central
>>>>>>>> database where you present some sort of independently verifiable
>>>>>>>> credential that they relate to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Outside the terminal nerds who gives a monkeys?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It matters because of the alternative requirements for always-on
>>>>>> connectivity vs validating [composting?] a ticket before travel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern online train ticketing is rife with warnings that order
>>>>>> confirmations aren't tickets, and when there's a two-stage process
>>>>>> involved it can't do any harm for passengers to understand a little
>>>>>> about the underlying processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where it might really matter is the situation where they've bought
>>>>>> ticket for someone else. And anti-cloning measures introduced by the
>>>>>> transport operator might make that next to impossible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, extended family have been passing around some online theatre
>>>>>> tickets as people juggle their Covid status, and while some have
>>>>>> informal processes, others are more tricky. It's hardly ever as simple
>>>>>> as just handing over a bit of paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rail industry is removing (removed?) m-tickets, so stop worrying.
>>>>
>>>> I would characterise an in-App ticket (as GA and EMR purport to support)
>>>> as an m-ticket, unless it's an e-ticket in disguise, in which case it
>>>> would require a facility to export to a different phone to properly
>>>> qualify.
>>>
>>> Well you are alone in that characterisation. At the very basic level, if
>>> you can screenshot the in-app ticket (or even photograph it with another
>>> phone) and the copy remains valid it is an e-ticket.
>>
>> *If* the copy remains valid. Some TOCs specifically exclude a screenshot
>> from being valid, and other transport operators (buses, I've got
>> insufficient experience with TOCs) watermark the in-app m-ticket at the
>> point of display, so that it's obvious (if not already) that it's not
>> just a static screenshot.
>>
>That’s exactly the point. If the copy remains valid it’s an e-ticket.

No, sometimes a TOC will accept a copy of an m-ticket, sometimes they
won't [accept it at all].

Think of it like paper tickets - how likely is it that a TOC would
accept a photocopy of one?

On the other hand, they positively encourage people [various wording has
been quoted the last few days] to make copies of PDFs to show them. But
that doesn't mean every such PDF is either literally, or transformed
into by the copying process, an e-ticket.

They might be content that an AP ticket with seat number on a specific
train, is sufficient proof someone is entitled to occupy that empty
seat, without the gripper having to go online and query a database.

>the fact remains that an e-ticket is a pointer and an m-ticket is the
>actual ticket.

You appear to be fiercely agreeing with me. Of course, it doesn't help
that TOCs often conflate the two terms in their literature.

ps It's still not clear to me (maybe someone can explain) why a typical
e-ticket is a massive barcode, when all it needs is perhaps an
8-character code, with all the rest being looked up in real time.

Or do we indeed have some hybrid animal, an e-ticket that's
redundantly offline coded with all the information we might expect
to find on an m-ticket?
--
Roland Perry

In message <fkrhrg9lthirkpgre49b43rnkqc3c0653q@4ax.com>, at 19:24:03 on
Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>
>>That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>
>I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case.

And yet we've been told that many email clients have PDF viewing
embedded in them, which makes that a primary function.

A bit like Word having jpeg viewers embedded in it, so you don't have to
download one separately if you are writing a document with text and
pictures.

It also appears that Word nowadays has a pdf viewer embedded too.

>So suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest
>way of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed,
>because the TOCs know it will work for everybody.

--
Roland Perry

In message <t02irgtihactd9p5p7bktssvd1cqbf203u@4ax.com>, at 21:15:49 on
Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>>You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>
>>>That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>
>>I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>
>
>Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention
>it when recommending PDF viewers.
>
>In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>author of the PDF).
>
>But I wouldn't have expected an experienced PC user (where the same
>considerations apply) like Roland to have been tripped up so badly on
>this trivial issue that doesn't seem to phase even novice mobile phone
>users. It's as if Roland has only just acquired his very first Android
>phone and is baffled by all the standard stuff that others take for
>granted.

An almost Norman-esque false premise there. My objection to PDFs is the
way that it turns the delivery of tickets into a multi-phase process
(which have several stages where extra glitches might, and indeed do,
occur). Rather than simply using the 21st Century technology available
within the mobile phone platform, to push them into the app's wallet.

The secondary issue (which we should try to avoid hi-jacking the more
fundamental proposition) is that the user might have to specially
download and install (and possibly sign into) a PDF viewer.
--
Roland Perry

In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>
>>>>That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>
>>>I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>
>>
>>Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>when recommending PDF viewers.
>
>Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>Standard since 2008.
>
>>In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>author of the PDF).
>
>The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>any standards-compliant software.
>
>In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>an embedded image.

That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
in the PDF? (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
database).

(On a related note, I've always wondered why my scanner has options to
produce jpeg or pdf files, when the latter appear to be simply a pdf
wrapper around an otherwise identical jpeg. Not sure what extra it
brings to the party, other than to satisfy organisations who might
demand a pdf format for some internal reason of their own).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t02irgtihactd9p5p7bktssvd1cqbf203u@4ax.com>, at 21:15:49 on
> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>
>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>
>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>
>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>
>>
>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention
>> it when recommending PDF viewers.
>>
>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>> author of the PDF).
>>
>> But I wouldn't have expected an experienced PC user (where the same
>> considerations apply) like Roland to have been tripped up so badly on
>> this trivial issue that doesn't seem to phase even novice mobile phone
>> users. It's as if Roland has only just acquired his very first Android
>> phone and is baffled by all the standard stuff that others take for
>> granted.
>
> An almost Norman-esque false premise there. My objection to PDFs is the
> way that it turns the delivery of tickets into a multi-phase process
> (which have several stages where extra glitches might, and indeed do,
> occur). Rather than simply using the 21st Century technology available
> within the mobile phone platform, to push them into the app's wallet.
>
> The secondary issue (which we should try to avoid hi-jacking the more
> fundamental proposition) is that the user might have to specially
> download and install (and possibly sign into) a PDF viewer.

It’s already been pointed out to you that the apps accept tickets to their
in built wallet. PDF is an alternate means of delivery. Choice is a good
thing. If I were going on a long or expensive journey I’d print off the pdf
at home as a backup. My one real objection to phone based ticketing is that
they consider you to have no ticket if your phone fails. They make no
effort or provision to look things up on the back end, unlike an airline
(probably excepting Ryanair) who will find your booking if you wave your
passport at the desk. Even something like a nominal £1 fee to stop everyone
winding up the ticket inspector with spurious claims of phone non
functionality would be a step forwards.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>
>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>
>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>> Standard since 2008.
>>
>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>> author of the PDF).
>>
>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>> any standards-compliant software.
>>
>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>> an embedded image.
>
> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
> in the PDF? (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
> database).
>
Because you might want to encode information for offline use. Consider an
on train ticket inspector.
Their machine is never going to be 100% online due to the nature of land to
train communications. Encoded information might show the type of ticket,
date of validity, class of travel, and even seat reservations, valid route
etc. So the inspector might not be able to immediately check the database
for ticket reuse, cloning etc, but they can check a lot of other things.

Some fools have been caught photoshopping the human readable dates, which
is instantly revealed if different to the encoded information.

In message <spb4hj$rht$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:06:43 on Tue, 14 Dec
2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>> I made a special effort to be on the first [public] Thameslink train
>>>>>>>> through the core. They were handing out commemorate cup-cakes, although
>>>>>>>> something less perishable might have been welcome.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there's an equivalent train through the Crossrail Core, I'll
>>>>>>>>probably try to be there. But it's far less clear if that
>>>>>>>>milestone should be Paddington-Abbey_Wood, or a service that's
>>>>>>>>through from further west.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The latter will be months later than the former, so will
>>>>>>>probably attract much less razzamataz.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But be warned that the first public train might be very early in
>>>>>>>the morning, as with the Battersea extension. There may be a
>>>>>>>VIP-only official opening train the previous day, possibly with
>>>>>>>HM in the cab. Perhaps that train will do what the initial
>>>>>>>public trains don't, and run through from west to east.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first *public* train is what counts (if it's early in the morning so
>>>>>> be it, but that wasn't what happened at Thameslink and it was
>>>>>> mid-morning).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that was unusual. Remember, I was on the same train, which I wouldn't
>>>>> have been at 5am.
>>>>
>>>> Where did you get on - I boarded at Cambridge. Would have to look up the
>>>> tickets, but probably around 10am.
>>>
>>> I travelled in the other direction, East Croydon to Finsbury Park.
>>>
>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157693123465884>
>>
>> Wasn't that the second one through the core, or is my memory playing
>> tricks?
>
>The first northbound, but perhaps the first southbound was a bit earlier,
>I'm not sure?

Definitely took the first southbound, and they were giving out the
cupcakes.

Looking up some press reports I'm reminded it would have been the 09:36
from *Peterborough* - I had to get a different train from Cambridge to
pick it up at Hitchin. There was quite a crowd at Hitchin, including one
former regular correspondent here. My photo shows the Hitchin PIS with a
10:30 for Horsham, and the subsequent video entering the tunnel to STP
at 11:02.

Cupcake at 11:07 (that PR crew got on at Finsbury Park). And Blackfriers
at 11:19 [unit number 700128].

Meanwhile it's said there was a 10am from Horsham to Peterborough, and
the one I got back, the 11:32 from Brighton to Cambridge.

Your photos have the train you caught timed at 10:56 [expected 11:03] at
East Croydon, and I have photos of the PIS at Blackfriars (and hence the
start of the new northbound through-running) showing an 11:35 to
Peterborough.

I think I did catch that one as far as Finsbury Park[1], but then
scrambled back to London Bridge on the tube (my first time at the
rebuilt station) to wait for the first direct train to Cambridge, dep
approx 12:40 (PIS photo unfortunately very blurred) arriving about 14:10

[Today's timetable has a Brighton 11:42. London Bridge 12:46, Cambridge
14:11]

[1] Didn't you say at the time you weren't one of the photographers I
saw in the front carriage of the train?
--
Roland Perry

In message <spc5sf$sbe$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:35:43 on Wed, 15 Dec
2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>
>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>
>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>
>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>
>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>>> an embedded image.
>>
>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>> in the PDF? (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
>> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
>> database).
>>
>Because you might want to encode information for offline use. Consider an
>on train ticket inspector.

>Their machine is never going to be 100% online due to the nature of land to
>train communications.

Fair enough, so an e-ticket by design, but a bearer bond in practice
when the comms are flaky.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> remarked:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>
>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>
>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>> Standard since 2008.
>>
>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>> author of the PDF).
>>
>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>> any standards-compliant software.
>>
>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>> an embedded image.
>
> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
> in the PDF?

Obviously it's an image embedded in the PDF, but it's much more likely to
be a PNG or GIF than a lossy JPEG. What else did you think it might be but
an embedded image?

> (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
> database).
>
> (On a related note, I've always wondered why my scanner has options to
> produce jpeg or pdf files, when the latter appear to be simply a pdf
> wrapper around an otherwise identical jpeg. Not sure what extra it
> brings to the party, other than to satisfy organisations who might
> demand a pdf format for some internal reason of their own).

Depending on how you intend to use the file, one format may be more
convenient than the other. PDFs can also be locked, unlike JPEGs.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>
>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>
>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>
>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>
>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>>> an embedded image.
>>
>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>> in the PDF? (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
>> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
>> database).
>>
> Because you might want to encode information for offline use. Consider an
> on train ticket inspector.
> Their machine is never going to be 100% online due to the nature of land to
> train communications. Encoded information might show the type of ticket,
> date of validity, class of travel, and even seat reservations, valid route
> etc. So the inspector might not be able to immediately check the database
> for ticket reuse, cloning etc, but they can check a lot of other things.
>
> Some fools have been caught photoshopping the human readable dates, which
> is instantly revealed if different to the encoded information.
>

As a slightly different (thread convergent) example, the QR codes in the
NHS vaccine pass reveal whether they're first or second jabs, and I assume
that boosters are encoded as third jabs. So, to fly, you specifically need
the QR code from the second jab or it will be rejected. This isn't evident
from the plain text.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <spb4hj$rht$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:06:43 on Tue, 14 Dec
> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>>> I made a special effort to be on the first [public] Thameslink train
>>>>>>>>> through the core. They were handing out commemorate cup-cakes, although
>>>>>>>>> something less perishable might have been welcome.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there's an equivalent train through the Crossrail Core, I'll
>>>>>>>>> probably try to be there. But it's far less clear if that
>>>>>>>>> milestone should be Paddington-Abbey_Wood, or a service that's
>>>>>>>>> through from further west.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latter will be months later than the former, so will
>>>>>>>> probably attract much less razzamataz.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But be warned that the first public train might be very early in
>>>>>>>> the morning, as with the Battersea extension. There may be a
>>>>>>>> VIP-only official opening train the previous day, possibly with
>>>>>>>> HM in the cab. Perhaps that train will do what the initial
>>>>>>>> public trains don't, and run through from west to east.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first *public* train is what counts (if it's early in the morning so
>>>>>>> be it, but that wasn't what happened at Thameslink and it was
>>>>>>> mid-morning).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that was unusual. Remember, I was on the same train, which I wouldn't
>>>>>> have been at 5am.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you get on - I boarded at Cambridge. Would have to look up the
>>>>> tickets, but probably around 10am.
>>>>
>>>> I travelled in the other direction, East Croydon to Finsbury Park.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157693123465884>
>>>
>>> Wasn't that the second one through the core, or is my memory playing
>>> tricks?
>>
>> The first northbound, but perhaps the first southbound was a bit earlier,
>> I'm not sure?
>
> Definitely took the first southbound, and they were giving out the
> cupcakes.
>
> Looking up some press reports I'm reminded it would have been the 09:36
> from *Peterborough* - I had to get a different train from Cambridge to
> pick it up at Hitchin. There was quite a crowd at Hitchin, including one
> former regular correspondent here. My photo shows the Hitchin PIS with a
> 10:30 for Horsham, and the subsequent video entering the tunnel to STP
> at 11:02.
>
> Cupcake at 11:07 (that PR crew got on at Finsbury Park). And Blackfriers
> at 11:19 [unit number 700128].
>
> Meanwhile it's said there was a 10am from Horsham to Peterborough, and
> the one I got back, the 11:32 from Brighton to Cambridge.
>
> Your photos have the train you caught timed at 10:56 [expected 11:03] at
> East Croydon, and I have photos of the PIS at Blackfriars (and hence the
> start of the new northbound through-running) showing an 11:35 to
> Peterborough.
>
> I think I did catch that one as far as Finsbury Park[1], but then
> scrambled back to London Bridge on the tube (my first time at the
> rebuilt station) to wait for the first direct train to Cambridge, dep
> approx 12:40 (PIS photo unfortunately very blurred) arriving about 14:10
>
> [Today's timetable has a Brighton 11:42. London Bridge 12:46, Cambridge
> 14:11]
>
> [1] Didn't you say at the time you weren't one of the photographers I
> saw in the front carriage of the train?

Yes, I was near the back, having had to sprint over the Gatwick footbridge
when they made an unannounced last minute platform change.

In message <spc4pe$nbb$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:17:02 on Wed, 15 Dec
2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t02irgtihactd9p5p7bktssvd1cqbf203u@4ax.com>, at 21:15:49 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>
>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention
>>> it when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>
>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>> author of the PDF).
>>>
>>> But I wouldn't have expected an experienced PC user (where the same
>>> considerations apply) like Roland to have been tripped up so badly on
>>> this trivial issue that doesn't seem to phase even novice mobile phone
>>> users. It's as if Roland has only just acquired his very first Android
>>> phone and is baffled by all the standard stuff that others take for
>>> granted.
>>
>> An almost Norman-esque false premise there. My objection to PDFs is the
>> way that it turns the delivery of tickets into a multi-phase process
>> (which have several stages where extra glitches might, and indeed do,
>> occur). Rather than simply using the 21st Century technology available
>> within the mobile phone platform, to push them into the app's wallet.
>>
>> The secondary issue (which we should try to avoid hi-jacking the more
>> fundamental proposition) is that the user might have to specially
>> download and install (and possibly sign into) a PDF viewer.
>
>It’s already been pointed out to you that the apps accept tickets to their
>in built wallet.

And I've responded that yes, they claim to be able to do that, but none
of the three such tickets I bought earlier this managed this feat.

Still waiting for GA to come back and explain why. (Tick tock, two of
their ten days gone, now).

Or perhaps you can help by telling me what menu entries I'm missing, to
pull them into the wallet myself (which they also claim should be
possible).

Indeed, I'm sure they don't actually *expect* every ticket to be
deliverable this way, as I have recounted by the way an Ely-LST ticket
from the GA website only offers TOD. But the ones I ought this week,
they do.

>PDF is an alternate means of delivery.

So far it's the only one I have experienced to a phone (TOD was also
available, but I didn't use it because the objective here was to test
e-ticketing, and on other flows I've proven that where offered - not
universally - ITSO ticketing works).

>Choice is a good thing. If I were going on a long or expensive journey
>I’d print off the pdf at home as a backup.

I expect I would (to put in a folder along with the hotel booking,
meeting agenda and so on), but remember I'm postulating using the local
trains as an ad-hoc bus-equivalent. How many people catching a tube from
Oxford Circus to Victoria would consider it sensible to order a PDF and
print it at home?

But we seem to be in a situation where someone popping into Ely on the
nine minute ride from Soham to do some shopping *is* expected to cope
with all the administrative baggage.

>My one real objection to phone based ticketing is that
>they consider you to have no ticket if your phone fails. They make no
>effort or provision to look things up on the back end, unlike an airline
>(probably excepting Ryanair) who will find your booking if you wave your
>passport at the desk.

I was on a Thalys years ago, and a rather high-maintenance-looking lady
got on at Schiphol for Brussels, and was clearly indisposed at the
concept of showing a ticket to the gripper. Let alone have pre-equipped
herself with the evidence of one. However, he was able to look up her
credit card and determine the booking was real.

>Even something like a nominal £1 fee to stop everyone winding up the
>ticket inspector with spurious claims of phone non functionality would
>be a step forwards.

And that's not too disjoint from the idea that if a TVM isn't working
there should be a £1-in-the-slot PERTIS machine as a gesture to the
idea you aren't entirely fare-dodger.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <spc5sf$sbe$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:35:43 on Wed, 15 Dec
> 2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>>
>>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>>
>>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>>
>>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>>>> an embedded image.
>>>
>>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>>> in the PDF? (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
>>> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
>>> database).
>>>
>> Because you might want to encode information for offline use. Consider an
>> on train ticket inspector.
>
>> Their machine is never going to be 100% online due to the nature of land to
>> train communications.
>
> Fair enough, so an e-ticket by design, but a bearer bond in practice
> when the comms are flaky.
>

There’s no shades of grey in your world are there? That’s at the root of a
lot of the issues on here.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <spb4hj$rht$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:06:43 on Tue, 14 Dec
> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>>> I made a special effort to be on the first [public] Thameslink train
>>>>>>>>> through the core. They were handing out commemorate cup-cakes, although
>>>>>>>>> something less perishable might have been welcome.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there's an equivalent train through the Crossrail Core, I'll
>>>>>>>>> probably try to be there. But it's far less clear if that
>>>>>>>>> milestone should be Paddington-Abbey_Wood, or a service that's
>>>>>>>>> through from further west.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The latter will be months later than the former, so will
>>>>>>>> probably attract much less razzamataz.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But be warned that the first public train might be very early in
>>>>>>>> the morning, as with the Battersea extension. There may be a
>>>>>>>> VIP-only official opening train the previous day, possibly with
>>>>>>>> HM in the cab. Perhaps that train will do what the initial
>>>>>>>> public trains don't, and run through from west to east.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first *public* train is what counts (if it's early in the morning so
>>>>>>> be it, but that wasn't what happened at Thameslink and it was
>>>>>>> mid-morning).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that was unusual. Remember, I was on the same train, which I wouldn't
>>>>>> have been at 5am.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where did you get on - I boarded at Cambridge. Would have to look up the
>>>>> tickets, but probably around 10am.
>>>>
>>>> I travelled in the other direction, East Croydon to Finsbury Park.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/albums/72157693123465884>
>>>
>>> Wasn't that the second one through the core, or is my memory playing
>>> tricks?
>>
>> The first northbound, but perhaps the first southbound was a bit earlier,
>> I'm not sure?
>
> Definitely took the first southbound, and they were giving out the
> cupcakes.

Also on the first northbound, by a gentleman who looked like he was a
frequent consumer of them.

>
> Looking up some press reports I'm reminded it would have been the 09:36
> from *Peterborough* - I had to get a different train from Cambridge to
> pick it up at Hitchin. There was quite a crowd at Hitchin, including one
> former regular correspondent here. My photo shows the Hitchin PIS with a
> 10:30 for Horsham, and the subsequent video entering the tunnel to STP
> at 11:02.
>
> Cupcake at 11:07 (that PR crew got on at Finsbury Park). And Blackfriers
> at 11:19 [unit number 700128].
>
> Meanwhile it's said there was a 10am from Horsham to Peterborough, and
> the one I got back, the 11:32 from Brighton to Cambridge.
>
> Your photos have the train you caught timed at 10:56 [expected 11:03] at
> East Croydon, and I have photos of the PIS at Blackfriars (and hence the
> start of the new northbound through-running) showing an 11:35 to
> Peterborough.

One of my later pictures in the set showed my train as the 11:45
Peterborough train from SPI. So the first southbound was indeed through the
Canal Tunnels earlier.
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/40498723841/in/album-72157693123465884/>

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>
>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>
>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>
>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>
>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>>> an embedded image.
>>
>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>> in the PDF?
>
> Obviously it's an image embedded in the PDF, but it's much more likely to
> be a PNG or GIF than a lossy JPEG. What else did you think it might be but
> an embedded image?
>
In theory it could be a mathematical/programmatic description of all the
little squares in the QR code. But in practice that’s unlikely. Or is it?
I’ve never seriously played about to see if the QR code scales properly.

Am 15.12.2021 um 07:28 schrieb Roland Perry:
> Or do we indeed have some hybrid animal, an e-ticket that's
> redundantly offline coded with all the information we might expect
> to find on an m-ticket?

Would you count the DB IC/ICE online tickets to be M-tickets or E-Tickets?

1) can be printed out and/or shown on the phone
2) contains all information necessary both in barcode and in writing
(can be validated offline)
3) safety feautre: personalized, only valid with personal ID
4) safety feature: online validation goes against database, offline
validation marks tickets as used on database on synch

Rolf

In message <spc8ut$d2h$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:28:13 on Wed, 15 Dec
2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>
>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>
>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>
>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>
>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>>> an embedded image.
>>
>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>> in the PDF?
>
>Obviously it's an image embedded in the PDF, but it's much more likely to
>be a PNG or GIF than a lossy JPEG. What else did you think it might be but
>an embedded image?

A PDF vector map, like the rest of the document might be.

>> (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
>> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
>> database).
>>
>> (On a related note, I've always wondered why my scanner has options to
>> produce jpeg or pdf files, when the latter appear to be simply a pdf
>> wrapper around an otherwise identical jpeg. Not sure what extra it
>> brings to the party, other than to satisfy organisations who might
>> demand a pdf format for some internal reason of their own).
>
>Depending on how you intend to use the file, one format may be more
>convenient than the other. PDFs can also be locked, unlike JPEGs.
>

--
Roland Perry

Am 15.12.2021 um 07:45 schrieb Roland Perry:

> (On a related note, I've always wondered why my scanner has options to
>  produce jpeg or pdf files, when the latter appear to be simply a pdf
>  wrapper around an otherwise identical jpeg. Not sure what extra it
>  brings to the party, other than to satisfy organisations who might
>  demand a pdf format for some internal reason of their own).

I would doubt that the PDF on a scanner is a wrapper around the JPEG
format; mostly PDF (and TIFF) formats use a compression optimized for
documents while JPEG is a compression optimized for pictures.

Rolf

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <spc5sf$sbe$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:35:43 on Wed, 15 Dec
>> 2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>>>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>>>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>>>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>>>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>>>>> an embedded image.
>>>>
>>>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>>>> in the PDF? (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
>>>> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
>>>> database).
>>>>
>>> Because you might want to encode information for offline use. Consider an
>>> on train ticket inspector.
>>
>>> Their machine is never going to be 100% online due to the nature of land to
>>> train communications.
>>
>> Fair enough, so an e-ticket by design, but a bearer bond in practice
>> when the comms are flaky.
>>
>
> There’s no shades of grey in your world are there? That’s at the root of a
> lot of the issues on here.
>
>

Another analogy might be a QR encoded airline ticket. That’s a token back
to the airline’s booking engine. But I bet when you use it to enter the
security lane at the airport it doesn’t trigger a real time interrogation
of that database. More likely it looks for an encoded date and the name of
the starting airport, and checks that the pass hasn’t been used on that
portal before to prevent pass back.

On 15/12/2021 00:03, Recliner wrote:
> <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 14/12/2021 20:42, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be describing Tesco who issue two types of voucher :-
>>>> 1.Money off, in proportion to the accumulated points.
>>>> 2.Money off, not obviously related to points and valid for limited
>>>> periods for purchases over a certain amount.
>>>> The second type seems to have arrived more often in recent times.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tesco's latest scam, which I'm now wise to after being stung twice [1], is
>>> to have what looks like a meal deal or 3-for-£1.50 (etc) but which is
>>> actually for clubcard holders only.
>>>
>>> [1] I already only shop there when there's nowhere else convenient, so a
>>> one-person boycott would inconvenience only myself
>>
>> The only use I have for Tesco is the very occasional distress purchase
>> or the use of their rest room which conveniently is between home and the
>> railway station. I prefer to walk three times the distance to Morrisons
>> or four times to Aldi.
>>
>
> Just curious, why?
>
> Personally, I prefer Waitrose, Sainsbury's and M&S to Tesco, and have never
> set foot in a Morrisons, Aldi or Lidl. I'm not impressed with the Morrisson
> shop on Amazon.
>

Both Waitrose and Sainsbury are the other side of Cardiff.

The quality of produce on Morrisons Market Street is excellent. Aldi
and Lidl have the advantage of having a full range of produce and don't
continually move it around but are small enough that you can be in and
out very quickly. They also have man items in their central isles if
you have time to look.

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 15.12.2021 um 07:45 schrieb Roland Perry:
>
>> (On a related note, I've always wondered why my scanner has options to
>>  produce jpeg or pdf files, when the latter appear to be simply a pdf
>>  wrapper around an otherwise identical jpeg. Not sure what extra it
>>  brings to the party, other than to satisfy organisations who might
>>  demand a pdf format for some internal reason of their own).
>
> I would doubt that the PDF on a scanner is a wrapper around the JPEG
> format; mostly PDF (and TIFF) formats use a compression optimized for
> documents while JPEG is a compression optimized for pictures.
>

PDFs and TIFFs are lossless formats (TIFFs are usually uncompressed), while
JPEGs always have lossy compression. I would think Roland is right here,
and his scanner probably does capture a lossy JPEG, with an optional PDF
wrapper.

On 15/12/2021 07:35, Tweed wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>
>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>
>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>
>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>
>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>>> an embedded image.
>>
>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>> in the PDF? (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
>> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
>> database).
>>
> Because you might want to encode information for offline use. Consider an
> on train ticket inspector.
> Their machine is never going to be 100% online due to the nature of land to
> train communications. Encoded information might show the type of ticket,
> date of validity, class of travel, and even seat reservations, valid route
> etc. So the inspector might not be able to immediately check the database
> for ticket reuse, cloning etc, but they can check a lot of other things.
>
> Some fools have been caught photoshopping the human readable dates, which
> is instantly revealed if different to the encoded information.
>

The onboard wifi is much better than you think. The only dropouts
between Cardiff and London Paddington, Portsmouth Harbour, & Newton
Abbot railway stations are a few tunnels and one short stretch near
Dawlish Warren.

I'm sure the onboard Wifi's have the correct ports open for the TTI apps
to operate.

On 15/12/2021 08:14, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <spc5sf$sbe$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:35:43 on Wed, 15 Dec
> 2021, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner
>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very
>>>>>>> strongly
>>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to
>>>>>>> review?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a
>>>>>> dedicated
>>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed,
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to
>>>>> mention it
>>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>>
>>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open
>>>> ISO
>>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>>
>>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>>
>>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device
>>>> when
>>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render
>>>> identically in
>>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is
>>>> simply
>>>> an embedded image.
>>>
>>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>>> in the PDF? (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
>>> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
>>> database).
>>>
>> Because you might want to encode information for offline use. Consider an
>> on train ticket inspector.
>
>> Their machine is never going to be 100% online due to the nature of
>> land to
>> train communications.
>
> Fair enough, so an e-ticket by design, but a bearer bond in practice
> when the comms are flaky.
>
Experience will soon teach the TTIs where to avoid ticket checks. The
Seven Tunnel for instance.

On 15/12/2021 08:28, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <c63irgdtobo6i0690q7rs3h8mjrog2arbf@4ax.com>, at 21:35:13 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:15:49 +0000, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention it
>>>> when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>
>>> Not any more, they don't. They did develop it, but it's been an Open ISO
>>> Standard since 2008.
>>>
>>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>>> author of the PDF).
>>>
>>> The whole point of PDF is that it will look identical on any device when
>>> rendered by any software. There are some advanced features, such as
>>> editable forms and a document tree, which not all read-only viewers
>>> support. But any given page of a PDF document will render identically in
>>> any standards-compliant software.
>>>
>>> In any case, the key part of an e-ticket is the QR code, which is simply
>>> an embedded image.
>>
>> That's interesting. Are you saying that the QR code is a jpeg embedded
>> in the PDF?
>
> Obviously it's an image embedded in the PDF, but it's much more likely to
> be a PNG or GIF than a lossy JPEG. What else did you think it might be but
> an embedded image?
>
>> (There's still the open question why an e-ticket needs so
>> much information, when an 8-digit code should be sufficient to index the
>> database).
>>
>> (On a related note, I've always wondered why my scanner has options to
>> produce jpeg or pdf files, when the latter appear to be simply a pdf
>> wrapper around an otherwise identical jpeg. Not sure what extra it
>> brings to the party, other than to satisfy organisations who might
>> demand a pdf format for some internal reason of their own).
>
> Depending on how you intend to use the file, one format may be more
> convenient than the other. PDFs can also be locked, unlike JPEGs.
>
PDF's can be unlocked easily enough. There's plenty of software around
including password crackers.

On 15/12/2021 07:17, Tweed wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t02irgtihactd9p5p7bktssvd1cqbf203u@4ax.com>, at 21:15:49 on
>> Tue, 14 Dec 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 19:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
>>> <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2021 17:40:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <spaivj$1j6$3@dont-email.me>, at 17:07:00 on Tue, 14 Dec
>>>>> 2021, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>> You can perfectly well view PDFs with no Adobe software installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true, although the rail ticketing sites direct you very strongly
>>>>> towards using Adobe. Maybe that's something else they ought to review?
>>>>
>>>> I think the point is that Acrobat is both cross-platform and a dedicated
>>>> PDF viewer, whereas other apps may only work for one or the other
>>>> platform and other cross-platform apps, while they may do PDF as a
>>>> secondary function, are not aimed specifically at that use case. So
>>>> suggesting that customers install Acrobat is probably the simplest way
>>>> of helping those who do not already have a PDF viewer installed, because
>>>> the TOCs know it will work for everybody.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Adobe owns the PDF format, so there may be some requirement to mention
>>> it when recommending PDF viewers.
>>>
>>> In any case, with large, complex PDFs (not rail tickets), not all
>>> viewers produce the same rendering, and it would normally be the case
>>> that the Adobe rendering is most likely to be correct (if only because
>>> it's the one rendering that's very likely to have been tested by the
>>> author of the PDF).
>>>
>>> But I wouldn't have expected an experienced PC user (where the same
>>> considerations apply) like Roland to have been tripped up so badly on
>>> this trivial issue that doesn't seem to phase even novice mobile phone
>>> users. It's as if Roland has only just acquired his very first Android
>>> phone and is baffled by all the standard stuff that others take for
>>> granted.
>>
>> An almost Norman-esque false premise there. My objection to PDFs is the
>> way that it turns the delivery of tickets into a multi-phase process
>> (which have several stages where extra glitches might, and indeed do,
>> occur). Rather than simply using the 21st Century technology available
>> within the mobile phone platform, to push them into the app's wallet.
>>
>> The secondary issue (which we should try to avoid hi-jacking the more
>> fundamental proposition) is that the user might have to specially
>> download and install (and possibly sign into) a PDF viewer.
>
> It’s already been pointed out to you that the apps accept tickets to their
> in built wallet. PDF is an alternate means of delivery. Choice is a good
> thing. If I were going on a long or expensive journey I’d print off the pdf
> at home as a backup. My one real objection to phone based ticketing is that
> they consider you to have no ticket if your phone fails. They make no
> effort or provision to look things up on the back end, unlike an airline
> (probably excepting Ryanair) who will find your booking if you wave your
> passport at the desk. Even something like a nominal £1 fee to stop everyone
> winding up the ticket inspector with spurious claims of phone non
> functionality would be a step forwards.
>
Now that most (but not quite all) trains have USB charge points I
suggest the time has come to make the flat battery rule only apply when
there are operative charge points.

XC Class 170s and the GWR HSTs are the only consists I know of without
USB charge points.