Talk:PDF/X
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Most of the info here comes from the help file from Adobe Acrobat Pro 7.0's help file. I am pretty sure about the restriction about active content, but I have found no explicit reference to it. If someone finds it, please remove the "fact" tag. If it is wrong, please remove the paragraph of course. Mlewan 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fact tag removed. Mlewan 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if PDF/X is a subset of Adobe PDF or a subset of the official PDF-A. Ernst de Haan 20:29, 17 Feb 2007 (GMT+1)
- Well, at least it was a subset of PDF only in the beginning, as PDF-A came later. According to German Wikipedia:
- "Da mit PDF/X – für den Austausch von Druckvorlagen in der grafischen Industrie – bereits seit 2001 eine weitere auf PDF basierende Normenreihe existiert, wurde bei der Erarbeitung von PDF/A darauf geachtet, dass eine gültige PDF/X-Datei gleichzeitig auch eine gültige PDF/A-Datei sein kann."
- That means that when they created the PDF/A standard, they made sure that a valid PDF/X file also can (!) be a valid PDF/A file. If that means that it always is valid PDF/A, I cannot tell. Mlewan 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
As the German Wikipedia page has more information on this, could someone translate some of the relevant information from that page and add it to this one? I would offer to do it but my German isn't very good these days! 87.74.129.148 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Info
Both PDF/X and PDF/A are subsets of the full standard. Really any compatibility between the two is "cross compatibility". One is not a proper subset of the other in any way.
Regarding moving information from the German wiki, I don't know German, but I know PDF/X well enough to understand what they are talking about. I've already begun moving some information over. Gigs 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Timeline Section
The timeline section is full of jargon and is very hard to understand. For example, what is "Dragon issue #291" or "John Dunn - Wizards of the Coast"? This makes absolutely no sense. Could someone who knows something clarify these entries? At the very least, there could be links to descriptions. --Asiir (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is not interesting any more, and is in any case not sourced. It sounds like something from a publicity page. I will remove. (anon). 86.159.6.48 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.