--On Monday, November 28, 2011 21:42 +0100 Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> One small suggestion, partially prompted by my attempts to >> convert PDF and Postscript RFCs to PDF/A: when the converter >> cannot or does not succeed in producing valid PDF/A, could >> that fact be logged in some accessible place? > > I would if I could; the problem is that the converter produces > a pdf document without giving any indication that the result > won't validate as PDF/A That is what I believe is called "broken". I hope someone can make a problem report. > -- it's only when trying it with one > of the online validators that I get a message that it fails > validation. If at some point I find a (free) command-line > validator, I can however easily run it on the existing corpus > and get the desired information. If the best (or only) way to handle this is via pos-production validation, then we can presumably do that at any time... and validators will probably get better over time too. Suggestion withdrawn. thanks for considering it. >> Also, mostly out of curiosity, does "unoconv" produce profile >> 1a or profile 1b? > > The validator tells me that the files which validate does so > against both A-1a and A-1b, which if I understand things > correctly indicate that it's 1a-compliant, since 1b is a > subset of 1a. This also matches what libreoffice is supposed > to produce. Yes. Without going down that rathole, I think (haven't studied the issue closely enough to be confident) A-1b would be good enough for our purposes so it may be vaguely possible that the files actually are 1b-conformant. Not worth worrying about until and unless we are ready to get really serious about this, establish specific norms, etc. I don't see that happening really soon despite the recent discussions. best, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf