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

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Mar 21 15:35:37 PDT 2012


On 2012-03-21 23:26, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> 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).

Yes.

> On the other hand, it is not self-contained (eg. Images are separate)

Unless you use SVG.

> which means storage & exchange are more difficult. Also no support for
> signatures or authenticity mechanisms or for metadata.

The latter can be had using RDFa, for instance.

In any case: if the authoring format indeed has the metadata we want 
(and that's way more then marking up rights and author names), and the 
authoring format gets archived, then whether the display format has the 
same features seems to be less important to me.

Best regards, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list