>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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf