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

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Wed Mar 21 15:41:18 PDT 2012


Yeah, if you archive the upstream format properly, the benefits of a
separate delivery format archiving standard are far from self-evident.
On Mar 21, 2012 12:35 PM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120321/b3fde976/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list