WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Whither /TOC and /TOCI in PDF 2.0? PDF accessibility question.


From: Karlen Communications
Date: May 14, 2019 12:33PM

My understanding is that you can still use the "old" Tag Set like TOC and
TOCI but it is going to be mapped to something else like a paragraph, list
or just a link. There will be no clear distinction in the Tags as to whether
you are in a TOC or a paragraph or generic list.

As far as I know, the use of PDF 1.7 is not specifically identified in PDF -
2 but I may be wrong. I keep hearing that you can use both PDF 1.7 Tags and
PDF - 2 Tags or either and still be conforming.

Cheers, Karen

-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < <EMAIL REMOVED> > On Behalf Of Rick
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 1:38 PM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
Subject: [WebAIM] [WebAim] Whither /TOC and /TOCI in PDF 2.0? PDF
accessibility question.

Hello Everyone,

This is a question about accessibility and the PDF 2.0 standard.

The PDF 2.0 standard, ISO 32000-2:2017(E), says that /TOC and /TOCI, and
several other standard structure elements, are no longer 'defined'. (Annex
M, page 958.)

OTOH there are many US Goverment agency documents containing accessibility
guidelines saying, e.g., entries in tables of contents *must* be tagged
(Table of contents entries in the PDF version of ISO 32000-2:2017(E) are
tagged /TOCI. That's presumably because it's a PDF 1.7 document.)

The complete list of previously-defined standard structure elements,
*undefined* by PDF 2.0, is: Sect, Art, BlockQuote, TOC, TOCI, Index,
NonStruct, Private, Quote, Note, Reference, BibEntry, Code.

Does anyone know why these standard structure elements were 'undefined' in
PDF 2.0?
What is the significance of their removal/undefining/defenestration in PDF
And what should be used instead?

If the PDF version of ISO 32000-2:2017(E) PDF 2.0 standard were to be in
Version 2.0 PDF instead of version 1.7 PDF, would the table the table of
contents entries still be tagged /TOCI, or tagged some other way?

The answers must be obvious, but I can't find 'em. If anyone has time to
explain this, it would be wonderful, especially if the explanation could be
made at a level suitable for someone who finds understanding the various ISO
PDF standards woefully difficult.

Or maybe PDF 2.0 is ignoreable for, say, the next ten years in terms of
accessibility, & most other things??

Thanks very much ...