design:pdf
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| design:pdf [2013/12/30 19:44] – rsewikiadmin | design:pdf [2013/12/30 20:38] (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 |
| * note also http:// | * note also http:// | ||
| 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:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | 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' | ||
| + | 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:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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:// | ||
design/pdf.1388432659.txt.gz · Last modified: (external edit)