1.4 (Copyright 2001) is fine for us.
That's OK by me, as long as that is the consensus and not the opinion of one of our esteemed committers. I was hoping for a little discussion about why PDF 1.3 is not even an option? There is some discussion of this topic in the archives[1] & [2] and also in the FOPProjectTasks wiki[3]. I acknowledge certain items require PDF 1.4 (transparency, encryption, and others[4]). But like Jeremias said in this thread[2]:
On 06.08.2002 09:23:06 Keiron Liddle wrote: > On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 09:00, Kevin O'Neill wrote: > > > Processor that complies with the XSL:FO spec to create PDF. [1] > > > > 1.3 or 1.4? > > 1.4 > because we have transparency
If that's the only reason, I'd like to have this configurable. I'd regret losing 1.3 compatibility.
My preference is still to 'shoot' for PDF 1.3 for all output which doesn't require PDF 1.4+ features. If one of those features is applied, then the format should change.
Then again, judging by my output, fop-0.20.5 appears to generate PDF 1.3 files (unless Encryption is enabled). Please correct me if I'm wrong. Requiring anyone who needs PDF 1.3 output would be perfectly acceptable to me, although for this and other reasons (bug fixes, added support for Barcode4J[5], & other PATCHes) I'd like to see a 0.20.6 release off of the maintenance branch (which could occur after our FOP-1.0 release).
[1]
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=104246257322783&w=2
[2]
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=102861860310316&w=2#1
[3]
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?FOPProjectTasks
[4]
http://partners.adobe.com/asn/acrobat/docs/File_Format_Specifications/ PDF14Deltas.pdf
[5]
http://barcode4j.sourceforge.net/fop- ext.html#The+special+FOP+extension+%28for+experienced+developers+only%29
Web Maestro Clay -- Clay Leeds - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - <http://www.medata.com/> PGP Public Key: <https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc>
