Now PDF does qualify but it is basicly an extended version of
PostScript. Since IETF already accepts postscript, the question
should be is there a need for features in PDF that are not
in standard postscript. If there is then we can talk about it.
There is, actually. Postscript is well specified as a programming
language, but somewhat underspecified as a document format. It's not
hard to write postscript by mistake that renders OK in your viewer or
your printer but has bugs or environmental limits that would keep it
from displaying in other viewers or printers. PDF is more tightly
specified than Postscript so there are fewer interoperability problems
among viewers that support the same version of PDF.
It should not come as a surprise to us that we are not the only people
in the world who are thinking about long-term storage of electronic
documents. ISO 19005-1 defines PDF/A, specifically intended for
documents that have to be readable for a long long time, like court
opinions. It's a constrained version of PDF 1.4. I'd suggest
adopting PDF/A-1B, which leaves out some document structuring
requirements in the more stringent PDF/A-1A.
PDF is a fine display format, but it is a rather poor editing format
since it's hard to do any more with PDF (even PDF/A) than either to
print it or to extract the text from it. XML on the other hand is a
putrid display format but it is easy to edit and is coded in ASCII so
even if the tools decay the document is still recoverable. I would
say that the alternative to ASCII would be a pair of documents, RFC
2629 XML input and PDF output, with the PDF being optional since it
should be possible to regenerate it mechanically from the XML.
Word is of course out of the question since it is proprietary,
undocumented, and unstable. I hope we have consensus on that.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf