| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2021/06/27) | Fwd 1 day (to 2021/06/29) >>> | 20210628 |
| ztheman | Ztheman peals straight up | 14:17.28 |
| | Ztheman says 'cuts power and' | 14:17.31 |
| | Ztheman says 'you know you really look good 4 to 6' | 14:17.33 |
| | Ztheman says 'Im right behind you' | 14:17.36 |
| | Ztheman says 'might as well bend oveer now' | 14:17.38 |
| | Ztheman says 'over' | 14:17.41 |
| | Ztheman says 'Dry run' | 14:17.43 |
| | Ztheman says 'Now lets play' | 14:17.45 |
| | Ztheman says 'kats thisd could get crazy' | 14:17.48 |
| artifexirc-bot | <KenSharp> Ztheman please stop spamming this channel | 14:17.49 |
| ztheman | Ztheman says 'she says bring it bring it' | 14:17.51 |
| | Ztheman says 'well no pressure here' | 14:17.53 |
| artifexirc-bot | <velix> I am going mad with PDF/UA ... really | 14:28.18 |
| artifexirc-bot | <KenSharp> doesn't remember anything about it | 14:28.42 |
| | <KenSharp> Oh accessibility. | 14:29.44 |
| | <chrisl_> PDF/UA isn't really something we have much interest in | 14:29.49 |
| | <chrisl_> I seem to remember it's one of the standards with the fairly strict "if you don't know, don't guess" rules | 14:30.28 |
| | <KenSharp> Nope, we cna't reliably generate such a thing | 14:30.32 |
| | <KenSharp> (or evne unreliably really) | 14:30.38 |
| | <velix> Yeah, it's a horror. | 14:54.13 |
| | <velix> The problem is: in Germany, one corporation is developing a tool to check PDF/UA compatibility. | 14:54.29 |
| | <velix> And funny thing: | 14:54.33 |
| | <velix> Their own PDF software is creating 100% valid PDFs. | 14:54.43 |
| | <velix> While all other tools (even Acrobat or LibreOffice) aren't. | 14:54.53 |
| | <velix> So you need to buy their solution to pass all needed tests :D | 14:55.08 |
| | <velix> #monopolism #lobbyism | 14:55.22 |
| | <KenSharp> Its not that unlikely to create PDF files that are conformant according to your own validation tool. You'd be worried if they couldn't! | 14:55.32 |
| | <KenSharp> The problem from our POV is that we get input from many different sources, there is no way for us to know how to generate much of the accessibility content (for example reading order, audio equivalenrts for text etc), and teh specification specifically says 'if you don't know, then don't guess jsut to be conformant' | 14:56.32 |
| | <KenSharp> I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out their PDF creation tool is breaking that part of the spec, and filling in missing information, even when it doesn't know it. | 14:56.59 |
| | <velix> The trouble is that most jobs require you to pass the tests of this tool. Even federal agencies force you to check your PDFs with this tool. | 14:57.30 |
| | <KenSharp> Given that our pdfwrite device accepts input from a number of different PDLs, it isn't even possible to guarantee that a given PDFL **can** supply the required accessibility information. So we've chosen not to go down that route. | 14:57.54 |
| | <velix> I've printed most of the stuff from Word via Ghostscript and post-processed it with Acrobat. | 14:58.13 |
| | <velix> 100 of 125 pages done. | 14:58.18 |
| artifexirc-bot | <KenSharp> shrugs | 14:58.26 |
| | <velix> Whenever $professor finds an error, I've got to restart ;) | 14:58.33 |
| | <velix> KenSharp: No problem, I'm paid by hour. So ... | 14:58.51 |
| | <KenSharp> Well if you want to do that, fine, you can probably even persuade Ghostscript to produce a PDF/UA compliant file, if you throw enough pdfmatrks at it. | 14:58.56 |
| | <velix> KenSharp: I don't think Word can export this ;) | 14:59.09 |
| | <velix> KenSharp SHRUGS | 14:59.18 |
| | <KenSharp> No I doubt very much that Word can generate the required pdfmarks, even scripting it with VBA or something | 14:59.55 |
| | <velix> I really think of relayouting the whole report in InDesign or such... | 15:00.48 |
| | <velix> I've got a crzay question. | 16:00.12 |
| | <velix> Really crazy. | 16:00.14 |
| | <velix> Can I use Ghostscript to remove an embedded OTF-TT font, while keeping all the UA-tags? | 16:00.48 |
| | <KenSharp> No | 16:01.18 |
| | <KenSharp> Ghostscrit doesn't edit or modify PDF files, it makes new ones | 16:01.32 |
| | <KenSharp> Ghostscript doesn't edit or modify PDF files, it makes new ones | 16:01.37 |
| | <velix> Can I use Ghostscript to create a new PDF while keeping all the UA-tags? :D | 16:02.18 |
| | <KenSharp> What do you mean by 'tags' ? | 16:02.39 |
| | <velix> KenSharp: don't know. all the UA stuff is called "tags" in Acrobat. | 16:03.04 |
| | <KenSharp> Well if you can't be clearer, in the terminology written in the PDF speicification, I can't answer the question | 16:03.31 |
| | <KenSharp> But I would imagine the answer is still 'no' | 16:03.43 |
| | <KenSharp> The XML Metadata will be generated anew, and that most likely contins 'stuff' to make it a PDF/UA file in the original. | 16:04.17 |
| | <velix> XML Metadata is just 1% of the whole problem. It's called "structure tagged PDFs". Sorry, I cannot find the specification, since it's an ISO standard and such it's non free. | 16:07.32 |
| | <KenSharp> The old version 1.7 specification is freely available | 16:07.52 |
| | <KenSharp> Unless PDF/UA requires PDF 2.0 (which seems wildly unlikely) then the PDF 1.7 spec is better than the ISO spec. | 16:08.18 |
| | <velix> Yes, ISO 14289-1:2012-07 (PDF/UA) is the old one. | 16:08.38 |
| | <velix> ISO 32000-1 (PDF/UA-1) is the new one | 16:08.47 |
| | <KenSharp> pdfwrite doesn't reatain marked content, so that will be lost if you create a new file with it. | 16:08.51 |
| | <velix> Ok :( | 16:08.57 |
| | <KenSharp> ISO 32000-1 **is** the PDF 1.7 specification, with teh index cut off | 16:09.20 |
| | <KenSharp> Anyway, the best answer I cna give you is that I very much doubt if a PDF/UA file run through pdfwrite will eb anything like a PDF/UA file afterwards. | 16:10.23 |
| | <KenSharp> And I'm reasonably certain the XML metadata will be incorrect. | 16:10.35 |
| | <KenSharp> Even altering that to turn it into a PDF/UA file woudl be non-trivial | 16:10.51 |
| | <velix> Looooool, I've got. | 18:14.30 |
| | <velix> I've converted the OT-CFF to OT-TT. Word was able to export this. And converted it back from OT-TT to OT-CFF in Acrobat ;) | 18:15.13 |
| | <velix> This Word world is soo evil. | 18:15.26 |
| | <velix> The PDF is in CMYK. Guess what Acrobat's font and color edits only offers you? | 18:20.17 |
| | <velix> RGB colors :D | 18:20.20 |
| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2021/06/27) | Forward 1 day (to 2021/06/29)>>> | |
Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.