Hans
We can probably gamble that version 2 supports it so we could add some "or version > 2" to the test but indeed 'no standard on our machines' maans 'no testing' and no recent acrobat on our machines means 'no testing if a patch works either' ... no way we're going to subscribe to some monthly adobe service for tools we don't really need nor can afford to pay for the rest of our life just for the sake of maintaining free software.
I don't think there is a reason to gamble nor a reason to pay for monthly services.
- adobe acrobat is not the reference it is just a (albeit probably fairly complete) implementation of the the pdf standard (but it is not a full implementation of 2.0 as far as I know).
- what counts is the standard and that even though it comes with a price tag because ISO always asks for money on cost of their standards it is moderate, eg something like $150 or so onetime cost and perhaps something like that could be found for free software support
- the other reasonable approach (in my eyes) is to say, we don't care about 2.0 because we get no chance to test it or get the standard without paying. But when doing so I think it would be a shame to cripple the software by making a *wrong* test. All tests in luatex that test version numbers have been introduced to check if a feature is supposed to be there, e.g the one here needs 1.4 but then testing just for .4 means you kill any reasonable 2.0 or higher usage, so why not make all such changes test for being less than 1.x and otherwise accept + the statement that we don't know what happens in 2. and beyond.
- maybe there are some tests that test is if a feature has been retired in 1.x but then again that should also test for major and minor since in all likelihood it is also retired in 2.y then with y<x
frank
