4 ms·
Why not both? Wasn't the point of the PDF/A ISO standard to use it for archiving? I always felt PDF is better for content like this than HTML which can change d
by haunter 7y ago
Why not both? Wasn't the point of the PDF/A ISO standard to
use it for archiving? I always felt PDF is better for content like this than HTML which can change dynamically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A
VeraPDF also exist for PDF/A validation https://github.com/verapdf https://github.com/verapdf
- weberc2 7y agoPresumably there are text formats which are both machine parseable and which are static? Or why not simply use the static subset of HTML?
- crooked-v 7y ago> I always felt PDF is better for content like this than HTML which can change dynamically It's not that hard to edit a PDF file either, though.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoThat's not the issue, the problem is we don't know what a document wood look like with next years browser or if it will render at all. That isn't an issue with PDF.
- wopian 7y agoThe same applies to PDFs too. There are hundreds of PDF readers and not all of them support all the features besides feature deprecation. You could run flash in PDFs, so archived PDFs that utilized that will be broken.
- icebraining 7y agoHence the aforementioned PDF/A, which is a version with a fixed set of features: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A