Talk:PDF/X

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 Wikipedia:
 * "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 Wikipedia 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)

Info
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)

Timeline Section
The timeline section is full of jargon and is very hard to understand. For example, what is "Dragon issue #291" or "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)