Open jdavison-mo opened 4 years ago
Feedback from an Agency Business Analyst who is aware of the history of NEHTA's approximately 2011 documentation which was pre Agency and pre-development of the HL7AUSD-STD-OO-ADRM-2018.1 document, says: "There is no rationale I know of – other than that in the requirement: there is a belief that some PDF readers don’t’ support embedded fonts. Remembering the CCP was first released in 2011 – that was thought to be the safest approach. It is certainly open to review."
In "DR-1.0.0-2020JUN-full-ig/site/StructureDefinition-diagnosticreport-path-mhr-1.html", "DR-1.0.0-2020JUN-full-ig/site/StructureDefinition-diagnosticreport-imag-mhr-1.html" and "DR-1.0.0-2020JUN-full-ig/site/StructureDefinition-diagnosticreport-otherdiag-mhr-1.html"
it says:
The above statement is at odds with (HL7au:000008.2.4) | PDF Display segment from HL7AUSD-STD-OO-ADRM-2018.1, and would make it impossible to put a PDF generated for use in HL7v2 messaging into MyHR. A lab would then have to choose which format to produce or produce both.
Further the argument that producers shouldn't embed fonts because some PDF viewers may not display the fonts is a weak argument against the pros of producing a PDF/A for archivability.
There is no guarantee at all that font substitution will be adequate or that a font used by a producer will be available on a receiver. Consider users of Mac/Windows/Android/Linux. All have different fonts installed.
If a viewer is not PDF/A compliant and unable to show information correctly, then that problem should be localised to them rather than applied to all users.
In HL7AU OO There are conformance points for receivers:
Consistent application of these would be appropriate.