[rfc-i] Use of PDF/A for archiving RFC's
lrosenth at adobe.com
Wed Mar 21 15:26:31 PDT 2012
As Joe stated, I guess it depends on what your goals are.
HTML4 (or XHTML) might be a potential solution as it's well established standard that has been accepted by many countries and organizations. It can be verified with existing tooling and there exists viewers that will render it. HTML5, however, is a moving target that wouldn't begin to qualify (IMO).
On the other hand, it is not self-contained (eg. Images are separate) which means storage & exchange are more difficult. Also no support for signatures or authenticity mechanisms or for metadata.
From: Tim Bray <tbray at textuality.com<mailto:tbray at textuality.com>>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:19:22 -0700
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth at adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth at adobe.com>>
Cc: "rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>" <rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Use of PDF/A for archiving RFC's
What advantage would PDF/A have over HTML? Seems to me that HTML would have equal longevity and is immensely more flexible in terms of usable delivery technologies.
On Mar 21, 2012 10:19 AM, "Leonard Rosenthol" <lrosenth at adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth at adobe.com>> wrote:
I have heard that you are investigating formats for use in archiving RFCs, and I’d like to propose the use of PDF/A (ISO 19005) for that purpose.
I’ve put together a short presentation that I hope clearly introduces PDF/A and its benefits as part of a solution for future RFC distribution & archiving.
Thanks for your consideration,
PDF Architect, Adobe Systems
ISO Project Leader, ISO 19005 (PDF/A)
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the rfc-interest