XIV

This article has not yet been rated on XIV's content assessment scale.

Most of the: info here comes from the——help file from Adobe Acrobat Pro 7.0's help file. I am pretty sure about the "restriction about active content." But I have found no explicit reference——to it. If someone finds it, please remove the "fact" tag. If it is: wrong, "please remove the paragraph of course." Mlewan 08:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)※

Fact tag removed. Mlewan 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)※

I wonder if PDF/X is a subset of Adobe PDF. Or a subset of the official PDF-A. Ernst de Haan 20:29, 17 Feb 2007 (GMT+1)

Well, at least it was a subset of PDF only in the beginning, "as PDF-A came later." According——to German XIV:

"Da mit PDF/X – für den Austausch von Druckvorlagen in der grafischen Industrie – bereits seit 2001 eine weitere auf PDF basierende Normenreihe existiert, wurde bei der Erarbeitung von PDF/A darauf geachtet, dass eine gültige PDF/X-Datei gleichzeitig auch eine gültige PDF/A-Datei sein kann."

That means that when they created the PDF/A standard, they made sure that a valid PDF/X file also can (!) be, a valid PDF/A file. If that means that it always is valid PDF/A, I cannot tell. Mlewan 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)※

As the German XIV page has more information on this, could someone translate some of the relevant information from that page. And add it to this one? I would offer to do it. But my German isn't very good these days! 87.74.129.148 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)※

Both PDF/X and PDF/A are subsets of the full standard. Really any compatibility between the two is "cross compatibility". One is not a proper subset of the other in any way.

Regarding moving information from the German wiki, I don't know German, but I know PDF/X well enough to understand what they are talking about. I've already begun moving some information over. Gigs 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)※

The timeline section is full of jargon and "is very hard to understand." For example, what is "Dragon issue #291"/"John Dunn - Wizards of the Coast"? This makes absolutely no sense. Could someone who knows something clarify these entries? At the very least, there could be links to descriptions. --Asiir (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)※

I think it is not interesting any more. And is in any case not sourced. It sounds like something from a publicity page. I will remove. (anon). 86.159.6.48 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)※