christoph.reller at gmail.com
Fri May 18 11:54:20 CEST 2018
On Tue, 15 May 2018 16:51:13 +0200 luigi scarso <luigi.scarso at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Christoph Reller <
> christoph.reller at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 May 2018 08:23:04 +0200 luigi scarso <luigi.scarso at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:15 AM, Christoph Reller <
> >> christoph.reller at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Our company is producing (and weekly updating) 67 manuals and
> >> > technical documents from more than 900 ConTeXt source files for our
> >> > software products. The output PDFs are converted to PDF/A-2a, which is
> >> > only possible due to ConTeXt's tagging.
> >> >
> >> What do you think of verapdf ?
> > Well, verapdf is only a validator and not a converter.
> > And, by the way, there is no reasonable way to convert from, say, PDF/A-2b
> > to PDF/A-2a without a rediculous amount of AI or manual input because the
> > tagging cannot be created out of the blue. It has to be there from the
> > document's birth. This is what makes this ConTeXt feature so precious.
> sure, the point is if verapdf is reliable as validator.
In my opinion, verapdf has one advantage a couple of disadvantages:
+ If everything works out as planned then verapdf may become one of
the most widely adopted validators, free of charge and open source
- verapdf is yet relatively new and hence inmature
- verapdf currently only validates against the PDF/A specifications
and not (really) against the PDF specifications. This is bad because
the latter are integral parts of the former.
- verapdf does not validate embedded streams such as images, font
files and color profiles.
In short: Only if you are sure that the input document is a valid PDF,
then verapdf can be used to test PDF/A conformance.
More information about the ntg-context