It must be a surprise to most people, but you can represent three-dimensional objects in PDF, in spite of its strictly 2-dimensional imaging model. It turns out there are two ways to do it, with the older U3D and the more modern PRC. What makes them possible is PDF’s annotation feature, which allows capabilities to be added to PDF, and the Acrobat 3D API. Full support of these features requires implementation of at least PDF 1.7 Extension Level 1, or to put it in application terms, Acrobat 8.1.
The PDF/E standard for engineering documents, aka ISO 24517, includes U3D but not PRC. A PDF/E-2 standard is currently in development and is expected to include PRC. PDF/E, like the other slashes of PDF, is a subset of the PDF standard (version 1.6), so obviously it’s possible to do 3D work without reference to it. It’s intended for cases where long-term retention or archiving is important. This suggests some affinity with PDF/A, which is specifically aimed at archive-quality documents, and the PDF Association, which is heavily involved in PDF/A, has recently started a PDF/E Competence Center. Oddly, the competence center says that PDF/E-1 “does not address 3D,” though other sources say PDF/E does reference U3D. Perhaps this is a matter of what really constitutes “addressing” 3D as opposed to just acknowledging it.
Bill McCoy’s article, “Takeaways on the Future of Documents: Report from the 2015 PDF Technical Conference,” offers some interesting thoughts on the future of PDF. I can’t find much to disagree with. PDF is in practice a format for reproducing a specific document appearance, and that’s becoming less important as the variety of computing devices increases. He makes a point I hadn’t thought of, that the “de facto interoperable PDF format” is well behind the latest specifications, which may explain why I haven’t seen complaints that JHOVE doesn’t know about ISO 32000 PDF!
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Adobe objected to the use of the name TIFF in the TIFF/A Initiative and proposed TIFF profile. Since Adobe holds the trademark, their objection has legal force. Accordingly, TIFF/A has become TI/A (Tagged Image for Archival), and the Initiative is now using the domain ti-a.org. The old domain redirects to the new one.
This is bound to cause some confusion, but it looks as if there wasn’t any choice.
Posted in News
Tagged standards, TIFF
TIFF/A is in search of a new name.
Today’s online kickoff discussion for the TIFF/A Initiative was productive in a lot of ways, but the big news for the broader public is that it will have to change its name. Adobe owns the TIFF trademark, and it doesn’t want “TIFF/A” used for the proposed new standard for archival TIFF.
The TIFF/A Initiative has announced its kickoff online conference for September 15 at 3 PM CEST. TIFF/A (see my earlier post) is a proposal for a set of rules, not yet defined, for archival-quality TIFF files. It’s still possible to sign up for participation. According to the email, the conference will cover:
Posted in News
Tagged standards, TIFF
Encoding all the characters of all the world’s languages is an endless task. Unicode 8.0 improves the treatment of Cherokee, Tai Lue, Devangari, and more. For a lot of people, the most interesting part will be the implementation of “diverse” emoji in a variety of colors. A Unicode Consortium report explains:
People all over the world want to have emoji that reflect more human diversity, especially for skin tone. The Unicode emoji characters for people and body parts are meant to be generic, yet following the precedents set by the original Japanese carrier images, they are often shown with a light skin tone instead of a more generic (nonhuman) appearance, such as a yellow/orange color or a silhouette.
Five symbol modifier characters that provide for a range of skin tones for human emoji are planned for Unicode Version 8.0 (scheduled for mid-2015). These characters are based on the six tones of the Fitzpatrick scale, a recognized standard for dermatology (there are many examples of this scale online, such as FitzpatrickSkinType.pdf). The exact shades may vary between implementations.
… When a human emoji is not immediately followed by a emoji modifier character, it should use a generic, non-realistic skin tone.
As most people who read this blog know, the development of PDF didn’t end with the ISO 32000 (aka PDF 1.7) specification. Adobe has published three extensions to the specification. These aren’t called PDF 1.8, but they amount to a post-ISO version.
The ISO TC 171/SC 2 technical committee is working on what will be called PDF 2.0. The jump in major revision number reflects the change in how releases are being managed but doesn’t seem to portend huge changes in the format. PDF is no longer just an Adobe product, though the company is still heavily involved in the spec’s continued development. According to the PDF Association, the biggest task right now is removing ambiguities. The specification’s language will shift from describing conforming readers and writers to describing a valid file. This certainly sounds like an improvement. The article mentions that several sections have been completely rewritten and reorganized. What’s interesting is that their chapter numbers have all been incremented by 4 over the PDF 1.7 specification. We can wonder what the four new chapters are.
Leonard Rosenthol gave a presentation on PDF 2.0 in 2013.
As with many complicated projects, PDF 2.0 has fallen behind its original schedule, which expected publication in 2013. The current target for publication is the middle of 2016.
Posted in News
Tagged Adobe, ISO, PDF, standards
A report from the 69th meeting of the JPEG Committee, held in Warsaw in June, mentions several recent initiatives. The descriptions have a rather high buzzword-to-content ratio, but here’s my best interpretation of what I think they mean. What’s usually called “JPEG” is one of several file formats supported by the Joint Photographic Experts Group, and JFIF would be a more precise name. Not every format name that starts with JPEG refers to “JPEG” files, but if I refer to JPEG without further qualification here, it means the familiar format.
TIFF has been around for a long time. Its latest official specification, TIFF 6.0, dates from 1992. The format hasn’t held still for 23 years, though. Adobe has issued several “technical notes” describing important changes and clarifications. Software developers, by general consensus, have ignored the requirement that value offsets have to be on a word boundary, since it’s a pointless restriction with modern computers. Private tags are allowed, and lots of different sources have defined new tags. Some of them have achieved wide acceptance, such as the TIFFTAG_ICCPROFILE tag (34675), which fills the need to associate ICC color profiles with images. Many applications use the EXIF tag set to specify metadata, but this isn’t part of the “standard” either.
In other words, TIFF today is the sum of a lot of unwritten rules.
It’s generally not too hard to deal with the chaos and produce files that all well-known modern applications can handle. On the other hand, it’s easy to produce a perfectly legal TIFF file that only your own custom application will handle as you intended. People putting files into archives need some confidence in their viability. Assumptions which are popular today might shift over a decade or two. Variations in metadata conventions might cause problems.
A few websites refuse to present content if you use a browser other than one of the four or so big-name ones.
The example shown is what I got when I accessed Apple’s support site with iCab, a relatively obscure browser which I often use. Many of Google’s pages also refuse to deliver content to iCab.
Browsers can impersonate other browsers by setting the User-Agent header, and small-name browsers usually provide that option for getting around these problems. After a couple of tries with iCab, I was able to get through by impersonating Safari. Doing this also has an advantage for privacy; identifying yourself with a little-used browser can greatly contribute to unique identification when you may want anonymity. From the standpoint of good website practices, though, a site shouldn’t be locking browsers out unless there’s an unusual need. Web pages should follow standards so that they’re as widely readable as possible. This is especially important with a “contact support” page.
Apple and Google both are browser vendors. Might we look at this as a way to make entry by new browsers more difficult?