On 6/7/21 10:43 PM, Leonard Janis Robert König wrote: > Hi Adam, Hi Pablo, > > I just noticed your replies, sorry for the late answer! > > I could sign forms with both okular as well as mupdf just fine, > although the behavior is different. The former assumes that the field > is already an existing signature and segfaults when you look at the > properties, but cann successfully add another signature using the > "Tools" menu.
Hi Leo, I’m afraid that I don’t use Okular. > With the latter you can click on the form field to > trigger a menu to select the signature you want to sign with, and it > "replaces" the "empty" signature generated by ConTeXt. Both work fine, > even with my newer ConTeXt. mupdf-gl signs the document, but in a way that only mupdf-gl understands it. Try to open a PDF document signed with mupdf-gl in Acrobat (Reader or not). You will see that the signature is wrong. >> On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 5:50 PM Pablo Rodriguez <oi...@gmx.es> wrote: >>> [...] >>> From my experience, only Acrobat deals with child objects in >>> signatures >>> generating a valid signature (and rewriting the two objects into a >>> single one). > > As mentioned above, it seems that mupdf (now?) actually rewrites "both" > signatures into one, however Okular doesn't. Sorry, objects is a very special term in PDF parlance. It has nothing to do with signatures. Just in case it might help, Pablo -- http://www.ousia.tk ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net archive : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
