(Sorry for the duplicate -- I inadvertently failed to cc the bug report on my private reply.)
On Sun, Apr 14, 2024, at 1:50 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Jay Berkenbilt dixit: > > >As it happens, I am upstream. > > Oh, nice ☻ in that case, thanks for qpdf. > > >--- > >It is not generally practical to remove objects from QDF files without > >messing up object numbering, but if you remove all indirect references > >to an object (without removing the object itself), this will leave the > >object unreferenced. Then you can run qpdf on the file (after running > >:command:`fix-qdf`), and qpdf will omit the now-orphaned object. > >--- > > That fixes the ambiguity but leaves the reader¹ wondering, on two > reading passes, what other references than indirect there are. > The reader who has not digested the PDF spec in and out, at least. > > If you s/ indirect//, would it still be correct? That would be > less possibly-ambiguous, I think. If it triggers this thought in you, it will trigger it in others. New wording: It is not generally practical to remove objects from QDF files without messing up object numbering, but if you remove all references to an object without removing the object itself (by removing all indirect objects that point to it), this will leave the object unreferenced. Then you can run qpdf on the file (after running :command:`fix-qdf`), and qpdf will omit the now-orphaned object. > bye, > //mirabilos > ① or at least me right now > -- > <diogenese> Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind it. > <igli> yeah but it means if you really care about something, don't > ritualise it, or you will lose it. don't fetishise it, don't > obsess. or you'll forget why you love it in the first place. >
