[poppler] PDF 2.0 Spec
haxtibal at posteo.de
Wed Nov 7 16:52:46 UTC 2018
Am 07.11.2018 07:03 schrieb Adam Reichold:
> Am 06.11.18 um 23:40 schrieb Albert Astals Cid:
>> As said by Tobias on a merge request, at some point we'll probably
>> start seeing bugs because of features used in PDF 2.0 that we don't
>> TBH i've no idea if Adobe products support it right now, but i guess
>> they eventually will.
>> Problem is in typical ISO fashion the spec is not freely available.
>> Also as typical it is relatively easy to find a draft spec on their
>> own website
>> Which given it's freely available on the internet I have only to guess
>> it's fine to download.
>> But of course it's a draft so one would not want to use it as
>> definitive answer.
> But isn't this somewhat true even for the final version? Meaning that
> will never be the definite answer as we will always look at other
> implementations or decide on our own that a document maybe formally
> incorrect or outright broken, but we still want to support it because
> our users want us to?
We can support "broken" documents, that's fine imo. Additionally, if we
have the standard at hand, we can cite some place and tell the bug
reporter "please give your composer vendor a hint to fix it at their
side too", just to improve the world a little bit:) We also want to
implement new features, poppler is not really complete in that sense.
There the standard should be the definite source of truth, and some of
us will eventually need it.
>> At this point the only answer I have is, I guess we could convince the
>> KDE e.V. or the GNOME Foundation to sponsor the Euros to someone that
>> really wants to read the document (and has a track record of
>> contributing to poppler).
Sounds good. Maybe we could get some more copies? ISO says "We can grant
extensions to your original single-user licence so you can make more
copies to share at work."  Out of curiosity I'm going to ask at DIN
e.V. (the ISO deputy in my case) what would be the pricing for say 2..5
users in an open source project. Then KDE e.V./GNOME Foundation can
decide if and how much they could sponsor, and we can decide if we put
private money into it. Are you ok with that?
> Interested organizations (I am thinking for example of public
> administrations) might also directly commission people to implement
> various functions from the standard and provide access to these
> documents but keep the ownership of the license so that it is not bound
> to a single person.
>> poppler mailing list
>> poppler at lists.freedesktop.org
> poppler mailing list
> poppler at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the poppler