just for the records. The problems were on ConTeXt's side (fixed now),
the online validator does a pretty good job.
Am 14.10.2016 um 17:10 schrieb Peter Rolf:
> Am 14.10.2016 um 14:16 schrieb luigi scarso:
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Peter Rolf <indi...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> Sigh.. I had high hopes on this one. Would be nice to have a free and
>>> working (in this combination) validator. I'll make some tests over the
>>> weekend and contact the author(s). No bug report, no fix.
>> I have not said that it's wrong, only that it fails to validate the
>> pdf..the validator could be ok infact.
> True, that conclusion comes from my side. I'm pretty sure that all
> needed XMP entries are properly set, so chances are high, that the error
> is on their side. But we will (hopefully) see.
> Also: If Acrobat isn't right, what tools are left for validation?
>> Btw, as I can see from
>> it seems that there is a bit of depression in validating pdf/a files ....
> Interesting, but better don't dig too deep... :D
> If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
> maillist : firstname.lastname@example.org / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
> webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
> archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
> wiki : http://contextgarden.net
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the
maillist : email@example.com / 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