On 12/25/2024 3:35 PM, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
Am Wed, 25 Dec 2024 22:58:40 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
Hi Hans,
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024, Hans Hagen wrote:
It's a GS issue ... it can't handle an in itself valid
Might be, but the statement:
│ **** file that it does not conform to Adobe's published PDF
│ **** specification.
says something different. I am not sure about the PDF spec here, but if
an empty beginbfrange is not allowed per spec, then luatex should not
produce it.
In the ghostscript bug report Ken relaxed this statement to
"senseless but legal" and the next gs seems to accept that.
https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708042#c3.
The PDF/Postscript specs do not really say if 0 is allowed as value
(typical vagueness) but as all readers seem to handle that ...
In the meantime I've seen plenty of pdf files (not produced by
pdf/luatex) that contain (for instance) "senseless but legal" operator /
font usage in the page stream so this zero 'array' is not the worst we
can have, especialy because what the tex engines produce is (apart from
possible user injections) about as clean as one can get.
One should also keep in mind that there might be plenty documents out
there that have zero entry bfrange's so it would be interesting to see
what the impact is of gs suddenly quitting on 'senseless' for a few
decades of tex documents out there.
Hans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE
Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
tel: 038 477 53 69 | www.pragma-ade.nl | www.pragma-pod.nl
-----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
dev-luatex mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
