On 4/7/25 22:16, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 4/4/2025 9:09 PM, Pablo Rodriguez via ntg-context wrote:
[...] Hans, I’m afraid this is the way to go. If my writting isn’t clear, let me know.
not sure what you mean: you either tag version 1 or you tag version 2;
Well, I tried to UA-2, but all output intents (since we have no PDF/A-4) are for PDF-1.x. So I needed a profile and I loaded PDF/A-3a (which is the newest we have). BTW, from what Ulrike said I understood (as per RFC 2119, “should” indicates recomendation and not obligation), PDF/UA-2 should use PDF/A-4, but it didn’t have to. After checking publication dates, I’m not sure whether PDF/UA-2 can only use PDF/A-4.
order matters so don't enable tagging for 2 and then choose some version 1 related format (maybe i can check someplace if users mix up) but we tested and got validated documents from vera .. unless of course the standard changed again (vera also changes and there are also differences between the used parsers)
Please, add a check (and a correction), so that users can forget about loading order.
it's not something i want to waste time on continuously ... just an occasional catch up with changes .. really it's not the complication but the mess that determines pace here
I want to waste as little from your time as possible with this. That being said, I’m afraid that the accessibility directive includes the possibility of sanctions for non-compliant services (ebooks are considered services, if I’m not wrong). Not sure (I’m not a lawyer and this is no legal advice) whether free services may be liable for publishing unaccessible documents, but this is the main reason why accessibility is important in ConTeXt. Many thanks for your help, Pablo