| | <<<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 version | 07:19.31 |
| 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 Google | 07:20.15 |
| | No, I don't know if or where a version of the draft might be available | 07:20.30 |
| 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 download | 07:31.36 |
| kens | Once the specification is published, teh draft is withdrawn | 07:32.05 |
| myopia | the iso.org page has "50.Approval" and "Now under development" for ISO/FDIS 32002 though, so the specification is still being finalized | 07:35.01 |
| kens | No, the specification for PDF 2.0 is finalized and published | 07:35.27 |
| 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 version | 07:37.54 |
| myopia | which is ISO 32000-2:202X | 07:38.43 |
| kens | Very possibly | 07:38.52 |
| | 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=1767446 | 07:43.05 |
| | still a bloody preview... | 07:45.27 |
| myopia | sighs | 07:45.29 |
| kens | Well yes, that's a *draft*, if you want the real specification you haev to pay. I *said* that | 07:46.08 |
| | Hah, it isn't even the full draft | 07:46.39 |
| | Charging for hte daft spec is sharp practice though | 07:47.11 |
| 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 0 | 07:51.37 |
| kens | That depends if the xref starts at offset 0 | 07:51.57 |
| | There's also a difference between 'normal' and 'valid' | 07:52.15 |
| myopia | no, it doesn't. and yet the file displays damned well | 07:52.20 |
| kens | Acrobat will open all kinds of crap, so other consumers are forced to do so too | 07:52.28 |
| | 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 fine | 07:54.26 |
| kens | Yes, but what does it *say* | 07:54.35 |
| | If thre are problems with the file Ghostscript will tell you so | 07:54.49 |
| | Even if it still runs it | 07:54.56 |
| 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 then | 07:56.03 |
| 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 comment | 07:58.49 |
| myopia | correction: somewhat close to the offset 0 | 07:58.49 |
| | (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 itself | 08:00.33 |
| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2020/08/31) | Forward 1 day (to 2020/09/02)>>> | |
Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.