[nonameiguess]

The author addresses this pretty well. Because you can embed whatever you want, static site generators aren't really static. In particular, Jekyll blogs and what not still pretty commonly include comment sections.

Of course, pdfs aren't necessarily static, either, but that is why Lab6 is choosing to use pdf/a, an actually static format intended specifically for long-term archiving of immutable files. This way you can sign the file and guarantee it stays the same forever and everyone's copy is identical.

I'm kind of surprised at the response to this. The author seems well aware of how terrible pdf is as a format and this isn't some treatise of why we should want to use it. It's an unfortunate compromise that, given the requirements they're aiming to meet, of generating a file that supports rich formatting and hyperlink embedding, but which can guarantee immutability and long-term archiving directly in the spec, pdf/a is all there is, so in spite of being a terrible format with a lot of shortcomings, it's what they're using.

[IshKebab]

Why don't they just use a static subset of HTML? You don't have to include comments sections, just like you don't have to include 3D CAD models and videos in your PDFs (yes you can do both of those, in theory anyway).

[account42]

> The author addresses this pretty well. Because you can embed whatever you want, static site generators aren't really static. In particular, Jekyll blogs and what not still pretty commonly include comment sections.

But just like you can choose to use PDF/A, you can also choose to have a completely static and self-contained (e.g. using data URLs for images) HTML page.

[danShumway]

> pdf/a is all there is

Nobody is requiring you to use PDF/A. No mainline browser (that I'm aware of) requires it.

So what is being solved? When I click on a PDF on the web, I don't know if it's using PDF/A, I don't know if it's embedding or linking its fonts. So it's the same situation, nothing has changed.

Telling people to use PDF/A when most clients do not enforce it and when there's no indication to users before they click on a link whether or not the link is following the spec -- it is exactly the same as telling them to use a subset of HTML; the author is doing the same thing they complain about.

You can't just say that PDF/A exists. That's not enough, how will you get people to restrict themselves to that format when 99% of their users will never notice the difference and no client is enforcing it?