Hi Mojca,
> On 27 Apr 2015, at 6:53 am, Mojca Miklavec <mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com
> <mailto:mojca.miklavec.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Ross Moore wrote:
>>
>> No standard TeX implementation currently comes close to producing Tagged PDF.
>
> ConTeXt MkIV does:
> https://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb31-3/tb99hagen.pdf
> <https://www.tug.org/TUGboat/tb31-3/tb99hagen.pdf>
Yes; I’m aware of what Hans can achieve, and hold him in awe. :-)
Besides, this uses LuaTeX. viz. this quote from the end of Hans’ article.
“Also, it is yet another nice test case and torture test for LuaTEX and it
helps us to find buglets and oversights.”
That is precisely why I used the word “standard” qualifying “TeX installation”
in my statement above.
>
> But of course that doesn't address the problem for LaTeXt users until
> someone writes a suitable/comparable package (maybe someone did
> already, I didn't try to follow).
I have coding for much of what is needed, using the modified pdfTeX.
But there is a lot that still needs to be added; e.g. PDF’s table model,
References, footnotes, etc.
>
> Mojca
>
> PS: Our government is still mainly depending on documents with a "doc"
> extension.
Right. Conversion to PDF requires Adobe’s converters.
There are known bugs — but this is doubtless being worked on.
The point is that, for people wishing to use TeX-based software to
produce PDFs, then extra converters or manual conversion techniques
(e.g., using Acrobat Pro) will be required to produce a valid PDF/UA document.
Unless, that is, our community takes this seriously and creates a major project.
Another quote from Han’s article:
“This is a typical case where more energy has to be spent on driving the voice
of Acrobat but I will do that when we find a good reason.”
That reason is getting much, much closer.
All the best,
Ross
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
