> The base syntax has not changed. But the elements described by the base have.
If the syntax hasn’t changed then there can’t be anything in the parser which is version-specific. -- John On 10 Mar 2014, at 01:43, Maruan Sahyoun <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > it’s not about PDF versions but PDF versions and standards. > > The base syntax has not changed. But the elements described by the base have. > > BR > Maruan Sahyoun > > Am 10.03.2014 um 09:20 schrieb John Hewson <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Maruan >> >>> As of today PDFBox has no formal support for specific PDF versions in a way >>> that a specific version can be enforced, validated ... >> >> Perhaps that is because there is not much demand for this? Nowadays everyone >> has instant access to the latest version of Adobe Reader so checking that a >> PDF can be opened with a specific version of Adobe Reader is not that useful >> anymore. There might be some niche cases, but I can’t think what they would >> be. For cases where it’s important that a PDF file is valid then a format >> such as PDF/A or PDF/X must be used instead as “vanilla" PDF is ambiguous. >> >>> The PDFBox PDF/A validation does a good job for PDF/A 1b but it can not be >>> easily extended to other standards. >> >> Yes, PDF/A is carefully validated because it is for archival purposes, >> unlike regular PDF files. >> >>> Do you think that there is a need for a more formal support of such >>> standards and versions? The would influence some of the design decisions >>> for the parser and affect the base objects. >> >> >> I can’t think of a reason why someone would want to parse a specific PDF >> version, so my answer is no, I don’t think there is such a need. Has the >> syntax of PDF even changed that much over the different versions? >> >> — John >> >
