On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 8:20 PM Frank Mittelbach < [email protected]> wrote:
> Luigi > > > > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:12 PM Frank Mittelbach > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > that mean never then. It is an iso standard and iso standards are to > be > > paid for. 1.7 was an exception as that was published as a draft still > > under the Adobe flag. Maybe that needs then some sponsor so that at > > least one copy could be bought for you, say. > > > > > > > > https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html > > <https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html> > > those are only a small subset, sure but many are on the IT field , and there are also ISO/IEC 14496-22:2019 EN 4th Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 22: Open Font Format ISO/IEC 14496-22:2019/Amd 1:2020 EN 4th Information technology — Coding of audio-visual objects — Part 22: Open Font Format — Amendment 1: Color font technology and other updatespentype (of course we follow also the ms site ) > the pdf standard is not among them, is > it? So, yes I should have said *most* iso standards are to be paid for. > > It is here: > > https://www.iso.org/standard/75839.html > > and it is more expensive than I remembered, somewhat in the ball park of > $250 per copy, but still I think the community should be able to afford > that, if that is what it takes. > > Well, if the ~ 1k pages of pdf 2.0 were totally different from pdf 1.x, I should say yes, the cost is justified --- and in this case, luatex should drop anything related to pdf 2.0. But as far as I know, pdf 2.0 is almost like 1.x, so most of the job was already done... Anyway, this is not the point: it is perfectly fine to pay for standards, but the pdf/xe/lua tex model until today was based on the assumption that the specs were freely available so that , at the end of the story, we can offer a solid program that makes a robust pdf (a free pdf reference is also very important for viewers). This is not true anymore for pdf 2.0 . Ideally the TUG should make available the specs to the tex developers (and contributors?) , practically I don't know if it's feasible (just to say that we should also consider the macro developers and contributors for e.g. PGF/TikZ). We do have a good chance to outrun a lot of the commercial applications > when producing PDF from TeX (or rather luatex) but it is a little > hampered if one has looses, e.g., transparency in graphics, if one sets > the pdf version to 2 > > As luatex developers, the goal is to produce a robust program that makes a robust pdf (and dvi), and, as of today, we cannot claim that luatex supports pdf 2.0 . Saying that , the patch in this case looks quite straight . -- luigi
