On 2/14/20 3:43 AM, Rik Kabel wrote:
> [...]
> The further I look into bookmark, annotation, and attachment handling by
> a number of viewers, the more confusing things appear.
Hi Rik,
this is why following the prescription (the PDF spec) is better in order
to check the standard than gathering
On 2/13/2020 03:56, Hans Hagen wrote:
On 2/13/2020 12:45 AM, Rik Kabel wrote:
Perhaps there is something in the difference between annotations and
attachments that results in different treatments by the various viewers.
it has always been that messy; there's also the annotation symbol
On 2/13/2020 12:45 AM, Rik Kabel wrote:
Perhaps there is something in the difference between annotations and
attachments that results in different treatments by the various viewers.
it has always been that messy; there's also the annotation symbol
treatment that can differ; it doesn't help
Following up on my viewer observations, I downloaded Evince for Windows
version 2.32 and see something that might be meaningful.
Evince has a side-panel with a drop-down for selecting Thumbnails,
Index, Attachments, Layers, or Annotations. Those that are not present
in the document are greyed
On 2/12/2020 14:20, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
On 2/8/20 10:13 PM, Rik Kabel wrote:
Not quite ready yet. When the hidden method is used, it passes the
online validator[1], but fails VeraPDF[2] for clause 6.8-1. When
visible, it fails the online validator stating that the appearance
dictionary
On 2/8/20 10:13 PM, Rik Kabel wrote:
>
>
> Not quite ready yet. When the hidden method is used, it passes the
> online validator[1], but fails VeraPDF[2] for clause 6.8-1. When
> visible, it fails the online validator stating that the appearance
> dictionary doesn't contain an entry, and fails
On 2/8/2020 12:32, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
On 2/8/20 1:45 PM, Peter Rolf wrote:
[...]
I attached the current code, so you and Rik are able to test it if you
want (creating a new format is required). Best contact me off-list if
you run into new problems.
Hi Peter,
the new version is fine for
On 2/8/20 1:45 PM, Peter Rolf wrote:
> [...]
>
> I attached the current code, so you and Rik are able to test it if you
> want (creating a new format is required). Best contact me off-list if
> you run into new problems.
Hi Peter,
the new version is fine for me.
From what I see, /F is now set
Am 07.02.2020 um 22:37 schrieb Hans Hagen:
> On 2/7/2020 9:55 PM, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
>> On 2/7/20 9:19 PM, Rik Kabel wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/7/2020 14:46, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
many thanks for having fixed the issues with attachments (in latest
beta
from 2020.02.07 18:36). I
On 2/7/20 10:37 PM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> Peter is stepwise looking into all these issues but we decided to also
> see how that checking and standards evolve in cases where it's a
> confusing mess. And these 'appearance dicts' are an example of a mess.
> On the one hand there's predefined
On 2/7/2020 9:55 PM, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
On 2/7/20 9:19 PM, Rik Kabel wrote:
On 2/7/2020 14:46, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
many thanks for having fixed the issues with attachments (in latest beta
from 2020.02.07 18:36). I haven’t tested attachments with PDF/A-3a.
PDF/A-3a attachments still
On 2/7/20 9:19 PM, Rik Kabel wrote:
>
> On 2/7/2020 14:46, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
>> many thanks for having fixed the issues with attachments (in latest beta
>> from 2020.02.07 18:36). I haven’t tested attachments with PDF/A-3a.
>>
> PDF/A-3a attachments still fail validation with the same issues.
On 2/7/2020 14:46, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
many thanks for having fixed the issues with attachments (in latest beta
from 2020.02.07 18:36). I haven’t tested attachments with PDF/A-3a.
PDF/A-3a attachments still fail validation with the same issues.
--
Rik
Hans,
many thanks for having fixed the issues with attachments (in latest beta
from 2020.02.07 18:36). I haven’t tested attachments with PDF/A-3a.
But there is still an issue with /EmbeddedFiles. MWE:
\setupinteraction[state=start]
\starttext
\startTEXpage[offset=1em]
14 matches
Mail list logo
