Brigadier General James Monroe Williams

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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)[reply]

Fact tag removed. Mlewan 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]