Jump to content

Talk:PDF/A

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.245.160.114 (talk) at 16:53, 12 March 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing: Software Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

PDF/A Example

Could anybody please add a link to a document that is actually PDF/A compatible. Even the White-Paper from the company which earns its money, by telling people how important PDF/A is, and which sells the "desperately" needed Software, even this Document itself does not pass the Preflight test from Acrobat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.99.112.66 (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like a commercial for the standard than a NPOV article. DriveBy27 00:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which statements specifically do you think are POV and how would you suggest improving them? Mrhsj 05:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its the whole section "Advantages of PDF/A." While there are certainly positive aspects of digital versions of collections of documents, the description here holds digital archiving of collections as more of a manifest destiny than an a business process. Costs of creating digital archives should be mentioned, and the possibility that the format will become obsolete and unreadable in the future. Conceded that setting the PDF/A standard is an attempt to avoid obsolescence of digital collections, but current fashionability of the standard doesn't guarantee the standard's future acceptance. IT history is littered with these kind of stories.

DriveBy27

I understand what the user above is saying, but this page serves as a very good start point for many people researching the only viable electronic archive document standard. The Software support section makes it look like only Adobe and OpenOffice support this standard. The fact is many other products support this ISO standard:

Brandonsturgeon (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pdf has already established itself as the standard for document archival. Reader and converter software is very widespread and there are plenty of opensource implementations so it is unlikely to dissapear anytime soon. All pdf-a does is codify the best practice for making pdfs as portable as possible into a standard that can be validated. Plugwash (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pdf to pdf/A

are there any (preferablly free) tools that can take a regular pdf as input and produce a pdf/a as output? Plugwash (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Adobe Acrobat cannot convert PDF/X reliably into PDF/A - Basically, you better start with PDF/A if you want to be sure your docs are readable by everyone. The program xpdf works well for testing compatibility of pdf documents, since it is a PDF v1.4 program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PDF/A-2

What about standarts PDF/A-2a,2b and 2u that realized in Adobe Acrobat X? --Panfily was here (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if someone wrote a section about PDF/A-2. Mrhsj (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PDF/A-2 is based on PDF v1.7 and will never be portable to software not created by Adobe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving 'Background' Section above 'Description'

I think the article would benefit the reader if the Background entry would appear above the Description. Just a thought..