Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.

 <<<Back 1 day (to 2020/08/31)Fwd 1 day (to 2020/09/02) >>>20200901 
myopia where can one get a copy of pdf 2.0 spec at no charge?07:17.43 
kens You can't. Its an ISO specification, the ISO charges for specifications. If someoen offered free versions then they would be perpetrating copyright theft.07:18.24 
myopia but there isn't a draft somewhere, like N1570 for ISO's C11?07:18.57 
kens There was a draft version, yes.07:19.13 
  That is, obviously, not the same as the final version07:19.31 
myopia as long as it is close enough. could you point me to the latest draft though?07:19.55 
kens My name is not Google07:20.15 
  No, I don't know if or where a version of the draft might be available07:20.30 
myopia ah, all right.07:20.43 
  well, https://www.pdfa.org/updated-draft-pdf-2-0-standard-publicly-available/ refers me to https://www.iso.org/standard/75839.html in the text "The Draft International Standard (DIS) version of the latest ISO 32000-2 (PDF 2.0) standard is now *publicly* available from ISO." however, the iso.org page contains nothing a draft download07:31.36 
kens Once the specification is published, teh draft is withdrawn07:32.05 
myopia the iso.org page has "50.Approval" and "Now under development" for ISO/FDIS 32002 though, so the specification is still being finalized07:35.01 
kens No, the specification for PDF 2.0 is finalized and published07:35.27 
myopia the one published/finalized is ISO 32000-2:2017, which is seen on the iso.org page "previously"07:37.29 
kens Which simply means they are moving to the next version07:37.54 
myopia which is ISO 32000-2:202X07:38.43 
kens Very possibly07:38.52 
  My point is that you won't get the draft specirfication of the current spec from the ISO site because once teh specification is published they withdraw the draft.07:39.27 
myopia anyway, I think I found a draft > https://infostore.saiglobal.com/preview/iso/updates2015/wk4/draft/iso-dis_32000-2.pdf?sku=176744607:43.05 
  still a bloody preview...07:45.27 
myopia sighs07:45.29 
kens Well yes, that's a *draft*, if you want the real specification you haev to pay. I *said* that07:46.08 
  Hah, it isn't even the full draft07:46.39 
  Charging for hte daft spec is sharp practice though07:47.11 
myopia maybe I should instead ask the real question: is it normal to have a pdf file with "startxref CRLF 0 CRLF %%EOF" at the end?07:51.26 
  note the 007:51.37 
kens That depends if the xref starts at offset 007:51.57 
  There's also a difference between 'normal' and 'valid'07:52.15 
myopia no, it doesn't. and yet the file displays damned well07:52.20 
kens Acrobat will open all kinds of crap, so other consumers are forced to do so too07:52.28 
  We all end up repairing broken files.07:52.40 
  What does Ghostscript say when you run the feil ?07:52.49 
myopia gswin64 on this pdf runs just fine07:54.26 
kens Yes, but what does it *say*07:54.35 
  If thre are problems with the file Ghostscript will tell you so07:54.49 
  Even if it still runs it07:54.56 
myopia after the copyright message, it says "Processing pages 1 through 1 CRLF Page 1 CRLF >>showpage, press <return> to continue<<"07:55.52 
kens Seems like there isn't a problem with the file then07:56.03 
myopia but this file still violates the pdf spec placing the xref table to the forefront, no?07:58.24 
kens Since I can't look at the file, I can't possibly comment07:58.49 
myopia correction: somewhat close to the offset 007:58.49 
  (also, the first entry of the xref table isn't offset 0 followed by 65535)07:59.56 
  alas, I guess PDF processing must constitute an *art* in itself08:00.33 
 <<<Back 1 day (to 2020/08/31)Forward 1 day (to 2020/09/02)>>> 
ghostscript.com #mupdf