[rfc-i] Use of PDF/A for archiving RFC's

[Joe Touch]

Hi, all,

It might be useful to understand the requirements, and separate out the 
phases since each might have different requirements. Paul notes below a 
display requirement for the archival version. Some others that come to mind.

Since I won't be at the IETF, my view of the phases and some possible 
requirements is:

(this isn't intended to be complete or definitive, but as a suggestion 
for discussion):

------------

Authorship
- supported by editors on a wide variety of platforms

Editing/community review
- supports document comparison ("diffs" or equivalent)
- supports copy/paste into email on a wide variety of platforms (e.g., 
for email-list conversations about content)
	this might include copy/paste of text as text for email,
	or copy/paste of diagrams as GIF or JPGs for email

Submission
- can be verified compliant using automatic tools/programs
- can be modified (i.e., editable; arguably this means the submission 
format is either the same as the authorship one or can be easily 
translated into a format that can be edited)

Archive
- displays on a wide variety of devices
- supports both intradocument and multi-document search (i.e., searching 
the entire RFC series)
- stability measured in decades

-------------

On 3/21/2012 2:24 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again, Leonard.
>
> One common problem with PDF/A is that some display systems cannot render the results from some PDF/A writers because there is disagreement about what the spec says or means, and many systems try to be bug-compatible with others.
>
> Are there any widely-accepted test systems that will evaluate a PDF/A file and say whether it is conformant to the standard and, if not, where it failed conformance?
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest