<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - pdfunite: invalid cross reference table" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90790#c3">Comment # 3</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - pdfunite: invalid cross reference table" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90790">bug 90790</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:Thomas.Freitag@alfa.de" title="Thomas Freitag <Thomas.Freitag@alfa.de>"> Thomas Freitag</a> <pre>(In reply to Albert Astals Cid from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=90790#c2">comment #2</a>) > Thomas? The review for the patch is okay. But I must admit that I can't really follow the arguments in <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30526254/sign-concatenated-pdf-in-append-mode-with-certified-no-changes-allowed">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30526254/sign-concatenated-pdf-in-append-mode-with-certified-no-changes-allowed</a>. Yes, according to section 7.5.4 Cross-Reference Table of ISO 32000-1 (<a href="http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/PDF32000_2008.pdf">http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/PDF32000_2008.pdf</a>) 2g.pdf is a modified PDF document. But why not? I can argue that pdfunite modifies the orginal g.pdf in the way that it adds a second page, which is in this case the same g.pdf. Therefore in my eyes itext should completely rewrite the PDF document when using the parameter CERTIFIED_NO_CHANGES_ALLOWED!!! Or it should deny to use this option with any modified PDF. But nevertheless, we can also argue that pdfunite should write a complete unmodified PDF, and since the usage of the parameter "writeAllEntries" does exactly this and also produces a well formed, just unmodified, PDF I can live with this change.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>