What is the better package to use in embedding metadata, hyperref or hyperxmp? Which has a wider range or can be extended further? (Like: Does using xmp metadata more reliable than just embedding a simple metadata?)

  • Related: Is hyperref really the best way to add metadata to a TeX file?
    – Werner
    Commented Oct 31, 2013 at 20:47
  • 4
    hyperxmp relies on, and gives instructions to, hyperref, so you need to use hyperref either way. hyperxmp is not easily extensible; xmpincl is more extensible, but much less user-friendly. XMP is an ISO standard, so that counts for something, but I suppose it depends on what your actual needs and expectations are....
    – jon
    Commented Oct 31, 2013 at 22:05

1 Answer 1


The two packages differ heavily so there is no «better» or «worse».

  1. The bigger and older and more low level hyperref mainly is about creating links in PDF. It can also add some metadata that are Document Info, not XMP. But the former are more and more being replaced by XMP metadata.
  2. The smaller and newer and more high level hyperxmp does not interfere with links. It mainly adds XMP metadata to the PDF. hyperxmp is built on top of hyperref. hyperxmp can use the interface of hyperref: \hypersetup{pdftitle=mytitle} will additionally create an XMP entry called dc:title when you \usepackage{hyperxmp}.
    But hyperxmp will also do some higher level stuff. When you just say \Title{mytitle} in a document hyperxmp (if loaded) will translate this to \hypersetup{pdftitle=mytitle} thus leading to a Document Info and XMP metadata. The newest version will even load hyperref if you don't to it yourself.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .