Hi Hans, and others.
Sent from my iPad
On 1/26/2019 12:01 AM, Karl Berry wrote:
> If the FontDescriptor dictionary of an embedded Type 1 font contains
> a CharSet string, then
>
> I see nothing in that wording that implies CharSet is anything but
> entirely optional.
that was my impression so
the problem is that as soon a some validator complains we tend to 'fix'
it (by inclusion again) but we really should be willing to doubt
validators
I understand what you imply here, but the practicality is different.
Students (postgrads mainly) produce theses using TeX which need to be submitted to their institution's library. The library system requires valid PDF/A. This validity is checked using Acrobat, since their institution has spent money for this.
Our own view on whether this is sensible or not has no bearing whatsoever.
Hence we must *allow* for workflows that produce PDFs to any sensible published standard. We have to work out how to do this, else TeX will be considered a dinosaur.
And we *are* smart enough to do this, provided we have the will to play this game properly.
(interesting is that for validating the correctness of a pdf
document in terms of xref and such, many pdf tools are pretty useless:
when it comes to viewing, gs, mupdf, qpdf, xpdf, web stuff all have
tolerance and/or recovery built in so they react differently ... only
(old) acrobats can be trusted in that department)
I've never found modern Acrobat, with Preflight, to ever be wrong.
Sometimes it's been pretty hard to work out just what it is complaining about.
But by viewing the correct object (after careful evaluation of the message) within a text viewer or parts of Preflight itself, the objection has always proved to be justified in the sense that something was either missing or causing a syntax error.
> Anyway, right now the choices are a) omit /CharSet or
> b) output a possibly-incorrect CharSet.
maybe we should just make a statement and always do (a) ...
No.
That will lead to the greatest number of rejections from libraries.
Our advice can be to use PDF/A-2 (or 3 if there are attachments) overriding any advice to submit as PDF/A-1b. Most validators check what is declared in the PDF itself, rather than what a clerk may be thinking.
and as most
folks use resonable modern viewers, just ignore a validators complain in
that area
Again, no.
If a validator objects, we have to provide inexperienced authors with a way forward.
Lack of clarity is harmful.
> If you want to have a third option c) <something else>, you (or someone)
> will need to send me a patch. (I highly doubt that Thanh has time to
> look into this.) Sorry, but that's the reality. -k
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-pdftex mailing list
>
ntg-pdftex@ntg.nl
>
https://mailman.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-pdftex
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 |
www.pragma-ade.nl |
www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hope this helps.
Ross