User Tools

Site Tools


design:pdf

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
design:pdf [2013/12/30 11:44]
rsewikiadmin
design:pdf [2013/12/30 12:38] (current)
rsewikiadmin
Line 9: Line 9:
   * PDF/UA - ISO 14289-1   * PDF/UA - ISO 14289-1
     * Pros: all the usual good reasons to make documents more accessible     * Pros: all the usual good reasons to make documents more accessible
-    * Cons: relatively new; uncertain as to long term support; unsure if this is necessary given the intent to make HTML docs follow W3C Accessibility Guidelines+    * Cons: relatively new; uncertain as to long term support; unsure if this is necessary given the intent to make HTML docs follow W3C Accessibility Guidelines ​- **Deciding NOT to go with the PDF/UA standard**
     * note also http://​www.w3.org/​WAI/​GL/​WCAG20-TECHS/​pdf.html     * note also http://​www.w3.org/​WAI/​GL/​WCAG20-TECHS/​pdf.html
  
Line 33: Line 33:
    can be correctly displayed, but does not guarantee that extracted text will be legible ​    can be correctly displayed, but does not guarantee that extracted text will be legible ​
    or comprehensible. It therefore does not guarantee compliance with Section 508 [4].     or comprehensible. It therefore does not guarantee compliance with Section 508 [4]. 
 +   
 +   
 +More about PDF tags [[http://​help.adobe.com/​en_US/​acrobat/​X/​pro/​using/​WS58a04a822e3e50102bd615109794195ff-7cd8.w.html]]
 +
 +----
 +List of assumptions (HF)
 +
 +   1 - There are valid use cases where people prefer PDF over HTML.
 +   2 - Self-contained outputs are better for readers of RFCs because they presuppose fewer configurations and installations on the reader'​s system.
 +   3 - I have a goal of minimizing the need to re-publish RFCs to get the format up to date (saves time and money to avoid this when reasonably possible)
 +
 +With that, I'd like to propose that we follow the PDF/A1-a standard for the PDF publication output.
 +
 +Anticipated questions:
 +
 +1. If you are suggesting PDF/A, why not PDF/A-2 or PDF/A-3?
 +
 +Based on conversations with experts at Adobe, PDF/A-2 and A-3 are not commonly supported at this time.  In addition, both offer features that are not required for RFCs; the goal is to keep this as simple as is reasonable given our requirements.
 +
 +2. Why conformance level A instead of B or U?
 +
 +Level A guarantees text extraction and searchability and preserves the structure and content in such a way that it can be easily read across a variety of deices. (See http://​www.dlib.org/​dlib/​november10/​noonan/​11noonan.html)
 +
 +3. How do the tags being used for XML and HTML translate or convert to PDF tags?
 +
 +Work still needs to be done to understand this
 +(See the list of Standard PDF tags here: http://​help.adobe.com/​en_US/​acrobat/​X/​pro/​using/​WS58a04a822e3e50102bd615109794195ff-7cd8.w.html)
design/pdf.txt ยท Last modified: 2013/12/30 12:38 by rsewikiadmin