Re: postscript vs PDF, Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service

Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> Sat, 28 November 2020 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5873A11EB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 15:11:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.14
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.26, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iexRgS8RF3Pe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 15:11:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-f174.google.com (mail-lj1-f174.google.com [209.85.208.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C228F3A1204 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 15:11:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-f174.google.com with SMTP id o24so10646104ljj.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 15:11:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+LtSFJCq+uRvJN+E6scpp3q3jwq8Eym0lgs9FZ+ihjM=; b=jBdfNZJhbJ/VPPYpcxj+qCzQcc+ihT9LPGM25sLMDnwQy6HmfvQ3O4vfalQDrMqS++ wnTXu9LsL8Fv1/m324dEwkOaGsgv3HyugM3pfreepEWJ8b8LzOL9/T6CYcFgnE7a8onB H75GK/9lWpevCqM6EnvvGPxDaI3SEa5eVFnpB8FnCAXb0yFD8q7vQvYF6ajL5HarTkWh WUzu2abcwJrJPy06raylO8tD1aSRc85svvMgAWLPzohroFdEeSWRmloXrqRaG86FB0t3 XOJH7Q3SiSz1xxoKgRtvvUB2RvNNiHrxTAwnAdcneBlAsE23QlEVWETiLN42T5opJwjS M2+A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DuJhB+g2Ln5bxBE4CTk9LzyGqQ7pwhMu4/HiCzv+QOTQdDs2/ 8eraMOfkwcs1TjgHUE1FWaDBENfxZ7JbA0yJoyY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygmQ31KxVHeM4ECG/UflZAdwK6pvbmxwoy71rFY1IX4JPTTXbOVskJTxO9gJqpreFn5Yhgmf6Gz6Y5xnGoibU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3316:: with SMTP id d22mr6344858ljc.392.1606605112940; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 15:11:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201128201704.D165728636C4@ary.qy> <541CBB9D85D6EEF8F3D05D51@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <541CBB9D85D6EEF8F3D05D51@PSB>
From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 15:11:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKq15vfL366xKWPTWBWhUGPAXpDbaHCJRr5Utf4oiJEU92DkJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: postscript vs PDF, Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000d1ab005b532e7ed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EpgLxjNIsk0otROOwZ0TlFnHD9U>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 23:11:57 -0000

I don't know about the old PDFs of RFCs scanned from paper, but at least
the ones being generated now are not just "PDF" but "PDF/A" (at least
that's what RFC 7995 called for).

*PDF/A* is an ISO
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization>-standardized
version of the Portable Document Format
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format> (PDF) specialized
for use in the archiving <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive> and
long-term preservation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_preservation>
 of electronic documents <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_document>.
PDF/A differs from PDF by prohibiting features unsuitable for long-term
archiving, such as font <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font> linking (as
opposed to font embedding <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_embedding>)
and encryption.[1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A#cite_note-nutshell-2-1-1> The ISO
requirements for PDF/A file viewers
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_viewer> include color management
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_management> guidelines, support for
embedded fonts, and a user interface for reading embedded annotations
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annotation>.

Of course, you can declare anything to be there for "the long term" and
lose because of disuse, but the widespread adoption of PDF/A as a long term
archival format increases the likelihood of interpretability.

On the other hand, there is no SVG/A (the analog of PDF/A but for SVG. This
means that the likelihood that, say, 50 years from now, you won't be able
to find a compatible renderer for IETF based RFCs in HTML+SVG is (IMO)
greater.

I'm a fan of preserving software through emulation (engaged in preserving
some old software from the 80s) but I think to be careful it might be
important to archive the Tools implementations of various versions of the
RFC XML formatted. Also when regenerating the text, PDF, HTML derived
forms, being careful to archive the previous renditions (as a safety
measure).
-- 
https://LarryMasinter.net  https://interlisp.org