There are two ways to put 3D models into a PDF file. Neither of them is an extension of the two-dimensional PDF model. Rather, they’re technologies which were developed independently, which can be wrapped into a PDF, and which software such as Adobe Acrobat can work with.
PDF has become a container format as much as a representational format. It can hold anything, and some of the things it holds have more or less official status, but there are no common architectural principles. The two formats used with PDF are U3D and PRC. Both are actually independent file formats which a PDF can embed.
Is TIFF a legacy format?
The most recent version of the TIFF specification, 6.0, dates from 1992. Adobe updated it with three technical notes, the latest coming out in 2002. Since then there has been nothing.
The format is solid, but the past quarter-century has seen reasons to enhance it. BigTIFF is a variant of the format to accommodate larger files. It isn’t backward-compatible with TIFF, but the changes mostly concern data lengths and are easy to add to a TIFF interpreter. The format sits in a kind of limbo, since Adobe owns the spec but is no longer updating it. There have been new tags which have achieved consensus acceptance but don’t have official status. AWare Systems has a list of known tags but has no reliable way to say which ones are private and which are generally accepted. There’s no way to add a new compression or encryption algorithm, or any other new feature, and give it official status.
The ISO specification for PDF 2.0 is now out. It’s known as ISO 32000-2. As usual for ISO, it costs an insane 198 Swiss francs, which is roughly the same amount in dollars. In the past, Adobe has made PDF specifications available for free on its own site, but I can’t find it on adobe.com. Its PDF reference page still covers only PDF 1.7.
ISO has to pay its bills somehow, but it’s not good if the standard is priced so high that only specialists can afford it. I don’t intend to spend $200 to be able to update JHOVE without pay. With some digging, I’ve found it in an incomplete, eyes-only format. All I can view is the table of contents. There are links to all sections, but they don’t work. I’m not sure whether it’s broken on my browser or by intention. In any case, it’s a big step backward as an open standard. I hope Adobe will eventually put the spec on its website.
HTML 5.1 is now a W3C proposed recommendation, and the comment period has closed. If no major issues have turned up, it may become a recommendation soon, susperseding HTML 5.0.
Browsers already support a large part of what it includes, so a discussion of its “new” features will cover ones that people already thought were a part of HTML5. The implementations of HTML are usually ahead of the official documents, with heavy reliance on working drafts in spite of all the disclaimers. Things like the
picture element are already familiar, even though they aren’t in the 5.0 specification.
A project to define an archive-safe subset of TIFF has been going on for a long time. Originally it was called the TIFF/A initiative, but Adobe wouldn’t allow the use of the TIFF trademark, so it’s now called the TI/A initiative.
So far it’s been very closed in what it presents to the public. It’s easy enough to sign up and view the discussions; I’ve done that, and I have professional credentials but no inside connections. However, it bothers me that it’s gone so long presenting nothing more to the public than just a white paper and no progress reports.
I’m not going to make anything public which they don’t want to, but I’ll just say that I have some serious disagreements with the approach they’re taking. When they finally do go public, I’m afraid they won’t get much traction with the archival community. Some transparency would have helped to determine whether I’m wrong or they’re wrong.
In a GitHub comment, Johan van der Knijff noted how messy it is to determine the version of a PDF file. He looked at a file with the header characters “%PDF-1.8”. DROID says this isn’t a PDF file at all.
By a strict reading of the PDF specification, it isn’t. The version number has to be in the range 1.0 through 1.7. Being this strict seems like a bad idea, since it would mean format recognition software will fail to recognize any future versions of the format. (JHOVE doesn’t care what character comes after the period.)
In 2001, the Unicode Consortium rejected a proposal to include the Klingon encoding. The reasons it gave were:
Lack of evidence of usage in published literature, lack of organized community interest in its standardization, no resolution of potential trademark and copyright issues, question about its status as a cipher rather than a script, and so on.
Fair enough, but don’t most of these objections apply equally to emoji?
TIFF is a very popular image format, but it can’t handle really huge files. “Really huge” means files bigger than 4 gigabytes, or more precisely, files in which any data offset can’t be represented in 32 bits. That’s not a limitation that comes up often, but some applications, such as medical scans, need enough detail to push the limit.
A dozen years ago, members of the TIFF community at AWare Systems came up with a simple idea: Create a variant of TIFF with 64-bit offsets instead of 32 bits. The result was BigTIFF.
You can legally download many specs from the ISO site, including the Open Document Format (ODF) specs. ISO lets you print out a copy. However, if you photocopy or scan it, or if you make it available on your organization’s LAN, the Copyright Police will haul you away.
I’ve seen similar restrictions elsewhere. They’re variations on the idea that you can download a document for free, but you can’t share it after you download it. It’s bizarre.
Maybe they’re trying to keep people from going into competition by selling copies of their standards. Since ISO also sells what it publishes, the goal would make sense. In fact, there’s a specific and emphatic prohibition on sales. But why they should care whether copies are printed or photocopied is beyond me.
Usually the answer to questions like these is “lawyers who are disconnected from reality.” If there’s a better answer, I’d love to hear it.
In Orwell’s 1984, the Newspeak language followed the principle that if you can abolish certain words, you can abolish the thoughts that go with them.
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. … This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.
Apple is doing something like this with Unicode codepoint U+1F52B (🔫), which the code chart defines as PISTOL, with the explanatory text of “handgun, revolver.” There’s nothing that suggests it’s supposed to represent a water gun or any other kind of toy. However, Apple has elected to represent this character as a water pistol in iOS 10.