[rfc-i] v3imp #6 Byte preservation for figs

Leonard Rosenthol lrosenth at adobe.com
Sun Jan 25 22:44:50 PST 2015

On 1/25/15, 10:06 PM, "Sean Leonard" <dev+ietf at seantek.com> wrote:

>It could go either way. I think it makes more sense to make attachments
>be companions to the document, and therefore, attached to the entire 
>document, such as in an <attachments> optional block towards the end of 
>the <rfc>. However in my proposals prior to this e-mail, I also 
>envisioned that they could be attached to the object in which they are 
>defined, namely as a drop-in replacement for <figure> or <artwork>. 
>(PDFs present attachments in the former manner; Word/Office documents 
>present attachments in the latter manner; e-mail clients do both.)

PDF actually supports three different types of attachments - the document 
level, the page level, and the object level.  Most PDF viewers simply give 
the user a single presentation of all of these merged together to ease 
their location/extraction by the user, but “under the hood” you have more 
flexibility on terms of actual attachment models.

But I think the point here, which I agree with, is that it may well be up 
to the tool that generates the output to decide which model(s) works best 
and simply use that.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list